University of Warwick
Equality Impact Assessment (Final) on the REF Code of Practice and REF submission
Introduction
An equality impact assessment (EIA) was completed prior to the submission of the
University of Warwick’s REF Code of Practice (CoP) to HEFCE for approval. The impact
assessment outlined a number of actions that the University would undertake to ensure
that the procedure for selecting staff for inclusion in the REF submission was fair,
transparent and that the selection process did not discriminate against individuals with
protected characteristics. These included:







A commitment to communicate the CoP to all eligible staff.
Provision of appropriate training to individuals involved in REF decisions.
A clear process for establishing both clearly defined and special complex
circumstances.
A transparent decision making process for clearly defined circumstances using
the calculation tables provided by HEFCE.
The establishment of a Special Circumstances Group (separate from the REF
Executive Steering Group) to review special complex circumstances and make
appropriate recommendations on the reductions of outputs to the HEFCE
Equality & Diversity Advisory Panel.
Clear articulation of an appeal process through which individuals who perceived
that they had been excluded on the grounds of a protected characteristic could
appeal to a separate Appeals Committee.
Strict confidentiality to protect individuals making disclosures.
The REF Executive Steering Group considered appropriate management information reports
during the course of 2013. Any prima facie imbalances were investigated by the REF
Executive Steering Group (REF ESG) to ensure that appropriate action was taken. The REF
ESG reviewed the EIA as the University’s submission was prepared, and made any necessary
changes to prevent discrimination or promote equality prior to the submission deadline.
In determining the impact of the CoP on equality and specifically those individuals with
protected characteristics, the EIA has considered both statistical data on the REF submission
and qualitative data based on consultation with staff and key decision makers within the
REF process. The assessment also reflected on the commitments within the CoP to evaluate
the general effectiveness of the processes contained within the Code.
1
Communication of the REF Code of Practice to staff
All members of staff eligible for submission to the REF were emailed an electronic copy of
the CoP on 28 November 2012 accompanied by a letter from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Provost). The CoP outlined the process of staff selection for the REF and mechanisms to
safeguard the University’s commitment to selection in a fair, transparent and consistent
manner. The CoP was also accessible on the Internet and it was highlighted in “Inbox
InSite”, which is the University’s e-mail update on key activities across the institution. The
CoP was also published on the University’s REF web pages, along with the REF Special
Circumstances Form. Heads of Department were notified when the CoP was sent to
individuals. Staff members on maternity, paternity or adoption leave; on career breaks; or
on long term sickness absence were also sent a copy of the CoP through the post.
Eligible staff were given opportunities throughout the process to discuss their REF
submission with their Head of Department, HR Adviser or with members of the REF Steering
Group. There have been various fora, some more formal than others, where staff have had
an opportunity to consult on all issues of the REF:
 Advice and guidance on the process by HR Advisors (each department has an
appointed HR Adviser).
 Departmental Staff meetings attended by academic staff.
 The REF Code of Practice (CoP) was submitted to the University Equality and
Diversity Committee, Steering and Senate meetings for consultation before
publication.
 Feedback from staff was noted on the format of the Special Circumstances forms.
Improvements on the design of the form were noted for the next research exercise.
Throughout the year preceding the REF submission, it was made very clear to all groups of
staff that submission to the REF would be entirely based on eligibility and quality/quantity
of publications, and that the guidelines given by HEFCE on the tariffs for staff with clearly
defined and complex circumstances would be adhered to.
Training on the Code of Practice
As specified in the University’s CoP, a number of training sessions took place on equal
opportunities legislation and legal compliance, with particular attention being given to the
HEFCE guidance provided by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). These training sessions
were delivered to all Heads of Departments, REF Coordinators and members of the REF
Executive and Operational Steering Groups, the Special Circumstances Group and the
Appeals Panel. All HR Managers and Advisers were also trained in order to be able assist
staff with REF related queries. In all, 72 people received training on the CoP including the
lay member of Council who served on the Appeals Committee.
Staff Special Circumstances
The CoP outlined the process by which clearly defined and special circumstances would be
dealt with. Staff were informed that an individual could be submitted with fewer than four
2
outputs where their individual circumstances had significantly constrained their ability to
produce four outputs or to work productively throughout the assessment period. Staff were
requested to complete a Special Circumstances Form if they had been subject to any special
circumstances during the REF period (see Appendix 3 for definitions). These circumstances
were listed in the CoP. All eligible staff were able to discuss their REF submission on an
ongoing basis with their Head of Department.
The special circumstances forms were dealt with confidentially by the HR Adviser for
Equality and Diversity, who made an initial assessment of the circumstances to establish the
rationale for a reduction of outputs (based on the ECU guidelines) before referral to the REF
Special Circumstances Group. All Special Circumstances Forms and their accompanying
evidence were submitted to the Special Circumstances Group for consideration. The forms
and their contents were treated confidentially at all times.
The forms were split into two categories – Clearly Defined and Complex (See Appendix 3 for
definitions).
For staff with clearly-defined circumstances, the number of outputs required was calculated
in line with Annex 3 Table(s) 1, 2 and 3 of the REF CoP and was evidenced by electronic or
paper staff files/records.
Staff with complex circumstances OR a combination of clearly defined and complex
circumstances were considered by the REF Special Circumstances Group. In some cases
further evidence was requested to enable the Group to make a properly informed decision
on the extent to which an individual’s circumstances had constrained their ability to
produce the required number of outputs. The decisions of the Special Circumstances Group
were communicated to staff by letter from the Chair of the Group, Professor Christina
Hughes, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning).
Appeals
Staff who believed that a decision taken to exclude them from the University’s REF
submission was discriminatory had the right to appeal on the grounds that they possessed
any of the protected characteristics. There were six appeals submitted by staff to the REF
Appeals Panel, which met on 18 September 2013. None of the cases submitted based their
appeal on the grounds of discrimination against a protected characteristic. The Warwick
Code of Conduct clearly stated that any appeals must be because of a protected
characteristic and therefore none of the six appeals were up-held. In conclusion, none of
the appeals highlighted issues that had a negative impact on a particular protected group.
Confidentiality
The University has strictly adhered to the REF Code of Practice with regard to the
confidentiality of information disclosed by members of staff throughout all stages of the REF
process.
3
Gender
A total of 1202 members of staff were eligible for submission to the REF – 848 males and
354 females. Of those 1202 staff members, 993 were submitted (Males: 722; Females: 271),
and 209 were excluded (Males: 126; Females: 83) – see Table 1. The lower number of
female submissions is largely accounted for by the significantly lower number of female staff
eligible for submission, but the figures do indicate a slightly higher percentage of exclusions
for female staff. To establish the reasons for this will require further investigation alongside
the statistics for clearly defined and special complex circumstances (see Table 6 and 10 in
Appendix 4). There were a higher number of males (132) who highlighted clearly defined
circumstances than females (108), although, relative to the eligible pool, the percentage
rate of women declaring clearly defined circumstances is higher than men (31% and 16%)
respectively. This indicates that women were aware of the opportunity to declare
circumstances and it is not surprising that a larger majority of circumstances were from
females as a significant proportion related to maternity and part-time working. In respect of
Special Complex Circumstances there were significantly more females (26) than men (16)
who declared a circumstance (or combination of circumstances) they believe had affected
their ability to do research during the REF period. This is even more statistically significant
when considered against the eligibility pool.
Table 1: Staff submission by gender
Total Submitted
Excluded
Male
848
722 (85%)
126 (15%)
Female
354
271 (77%)
83 (23%)
Total
1202
993 (83%)
209 (17%)
In evaluating the submission rate for females, it is clear that there are a lower number of
eligible females. Clearly the REF selection process and CoP cannot be held accountable for
the comparatively low number of women in academic and research posts and so, in
assessing the equality implications of the CoP, focus has been on the conversion rates for
male and females. The University has already identified the wider issue of the gender split
among researchers and this is being addressed through extensive work on Athena SWAN,
Gender Equality Charter Mark and the University’s overarching equality objectives. Some of
the actions to address the relatively low number of female researchers are detailed in the
Action Plan (Appendix 1). An analysis of submissions by grade indicates that the lowest
conversion rate from eligibility to submission occurs at FA8 (Associate Professor/Principal
Research Fellow). Further examination will continue to be made as to why a higher
percentage of women at this level are not meeting the qualifying criteria. The result is also
echoed through in the male submissions by level. (See Table 5 in Appendix 4). Whilst the
number of females included in the REF at level FA9 (70) appears comparatively low in
relation to the number of males at level FA9 who have been submitted for the REF (319),
4
the overall number of females eligible for submission at FA9 is 81 (as opposed to 351
males).
Statistics indicate that the highest number of staff were submitted from the Faculty of
Science (409). It is positive that in the Arts Faculty, 93% of eligible women were submitted.
It is also noteworthy that the Science Faculty had a high conversion rate for women with
85% of eligible females being submitted. This may be indicative of the impact of some of the
work already being conducted to ensure the development and progression of women in
STEM disciplines.
Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)
The data shows that 111 Black, Minority, Ethnic staff (BME) staff were submitted and 43
were excluded. Information is not available for staff who have chosen not to disclose or
have refused to disclose the information (69 staff included and 4 staff who were excluded).
The total percentage of BME staff excluded from the REF is 28%. This is higher than the
overall exclusion rate of 17%. This needs to be taken in the context of a lower overall pool
of BME staff eligible for the REF (154), which equates to 13% of the total number of eligible
staff. Correlating the BME data with the special circumstances indicates 51 BME employees
submitted a clearly defined circumstance (see Table 7 in Appendix 4) and 4 BME employees
declared special complex circumstances (4). Table 11 in Appendix 4 indicates that only 1 of
the 4 BME staff who had submitted a complex special circumstances form was included in
the REF submission, while 78% of BME staff submitting a clearly defined case were
submitted to the REF.
Table 2: Staff submission by BME
BME
Total Submitted
154
111 (72%)
Excluded
43 (28%)
Disability
In respect of disability 89% of individuals declaring a disability were submitted. 41 members
of staff who were included in the REF have not disclosed or have refused to disclose the
information, with 5 members of excluded staff also choosing not to disclose. (see Table 3).
Reviewing the statistics against the clearly defined and special circumstances, there were 6
individuals with a disability who noted a clearly defined circumstance and 7 who submitted
a special complex circumstance (see Table 8 and Table 12 in Appendix 4). Of those
submitting a clearly defined circumstance 100% were submitted as were 71% of those with
a special complex circumstance.
5
Table 3: Staff submission by disability
Total
26
Declared disabled
Submitted
23 (89%)
Excluded
3 (11%)
Age
The age profile of submissions was reviewed to determine both the profile of the eligible
pool and the pattern of submissions. Table 4 shows the age profile of eligible staff. The
highest proportion of staff excluded from REF was in the 56-65 age band (27%), with the
lowest in the age band 26-35 (9%). The age range submitting the highest number of clearly
defined circumstances is 26-35 and then 36-45 (see Table 9 in Appendix 4). This would be
anticipated as the majority of parental leave would fall within these age ranges. For the
special complex circumstances the highest number of circumstances submitted was in the
46-55 age range (see Table 13 in Appendix 4).
Table 4: Staff submission by age
Age Band
Total
0
Submitted
0 (0%)
Excluded
0 (0%)
21-25
1
1 (100%)
0 (0%)
26-35
223
203 (91%)
20 (9%)
36-45
381
326 (86%)
55 (14%)
46-55
369
292 (79%)
77 (21%)
56-65
188
137 (73%)
51 (27%)
66+
40
34 (85%)
6 (15%)
Total
1202
993 (83%)
209 (17%)
<21
Religion and Belief and Sexual Orientation
The University is starting to collect data on Religion and Belief and Sexual Orientation in
2014 but believes that even though these protected characteristics have not formally be
factored into the HEFCE/ECU reduced output guidelines, the process itself has been
transparent and based only on quality/quantity of outputs. The University did not receive
any special circumstances forms from staff with any of these protected characteristics and
has not received back, via consultation, any discrimination claims on these grounds.
6
Conclusion
To conclude this analysis of the REF submission process, the CoP has been adhered to in
respect of the establishment of processes (Special Circumstances and Appeals),
communication, training and confidentiality. Checks have been made at every stage of the
process to ensure consistency and fairness, with any potential discrepancies being
thoroughly re-checked and justified.
A number of issues identified through consultation, feedback and the statistics have been
highlighted for further consideration, both from a wider equality aspect, as well as for the
next research exercise. Suggestions have been made both by members of academic staff
through their own experiences of the REF and staff involved in the administration of the
process. These areas have been incorporated into an Action Plan (see Appendix 1). Many of
the actions detailed are existing actions from work already being investigated or conducted
as part of our overall institutional response to our annual workforce profile and monitoring
and our Athena SWAN objectives. These include increasing the number of females, BME
and Disabled staff who are eligible for REF and supporting researchers to reach their
potential while meeting the quality criteria for future research exercises.
7
APPENDIX 1: ACTION PLAN
KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION – FROM CONSULTATION, FEEDBACK AND REF STATISTICS
Key Issue
Ultimate Goal
REF PROCESS AND MONITORING IMPROVEMENTS
1. It became evident during the REF process
To improve sickness
that there was evidence of inconsistent
absence recording to
practice in the reporting of sickness absence
ensure that the
as detailed in the University Sickness
University is able to
Absence Policy. This therefore led to staff
manage reasonable
claiming to have had periods of sickness,
adjustments and
which could not be completely verified by
support appropriately
the HR system
to allow people to
continue to reach their
full research potential.
Protected Characteristic: ALL
2. Inconsistent information was available in HR
files relating to staff who had been on
secondments during the REF period.
More precise information needs to be
retained on the type of job role that staff are
being seconded to.
Protected Characteristic: ALL
3. Improvements to REF Special Circumstances
Forms:
The Special Circumstances form was
replicated from the ECU example provided.
To allow the University
to make adjustments in
respect of special
circumstances.
To improve
secondment
information
To improve clarity for
staff who are required
to complete a form.
Actions
Measurable Outcome
Accountability
Timescales
(a) All HR Advisers to meet with Departmental
Heads of Departments (HoDs) and
Administrators to communicate the
importance of sickness absence recording to
ensure the HR system is up to date.
(b) For all HoDs to disseminate this information to
members of staff in their respective
departments.
(c) HR to run spot checks on departments on
absence recording
Improvement in recording
absences evidenced in part
through the Special
Circumstances process.
HoDs,
Departmental
Administrators,
Staff members,
Human
Resources (HR)
Communication
to all Heads of
Departments
and associated
guidance from
HR AdvisersSpring Term
2014
(a) HoDs and HR Advisers to ensure accurate
information is collected and filed on all
secondments.
(b) HR systems to be kept up-dated.
Up to date secondment
reports available.
Improvement on the type of
information collected.
HoDs and HR
The form was modified slightly with the following:
Staff who did not need to
complete the form should
not have to do so – only
those with clearly defined or
Staff eligible for
the REF
Communication
to Heads of
Departments
and HR Advisers
to ensure
consistent
information is
recorded in
respect of
secondmentsSpring Term
2014
COMPLETED
but noted for
next Research
Exercise
Section one: the following selection was
removed:
8
The form was modified slightly for clarity –
ACTION COMPLETED
Disclosure of protected Characteristics –
ACTION COMPLETED
 I have no individual circumstances that I wish to
be taken into consideration for the purpose of the
Research Excellence Framework (REF).
To improve disclosure
rates
Confidentiality of the Special Circumstances
Form
Due to the confidential nature of the REF
Special Circumstances Form and as
highlighted in the Warwick CoP, the forms
were only seen by those staff with a
legitimate requirement to see the
documentation for purposes of
administering and managing the REF
A sentence was added to the REF Special
Circumstances Form: ‘As personal information
collected in this exercise has been obtained solely
for REF purposes, anyone wishing the information
to be included in their University records should
contact the HR Adviser for their department’.
This statement was added to encourage staff to
disclose disabilities or other protected
characteristics that they might not have already
disclosed. The 2012/13 Warwick Workforce
Profile has indicated that there has been a drop in
the number of staff disclosing disabilities, so this
was a mechanism to try to capture this type of
information.
complex circumstances
should have to complete a
form.
Improvements in the number
of staff disclosing protected
characteristics
All Staff
HR systems
staff
Confusion from staff who actually wanted their
HoDs to see their Special Circumstances Forms, so
that the HoDs became aware of their
circumstances. When staff found out that HoDs
did not have access to the form they asked for this
to be made more explicit on the form and that an
option be included as below:
COMPLETED
but noted for
next Research
Exercise
COMPLETED
but noted for
next Research
Exercise
Do you wish your Head of Department to see a
copy of your Special Circumstances Form: YES/NO?
Protected Characteristic: ALL
RECRUITMENT (INCREASING THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE STAFF – GENDER/BME)
4. To attract more females to apply for
More applications from
research and academic positions.
females and more
appointments of
Identify and reduce where possible any
females to academic
potential barriers to females applying to
roles.
academic/research positions.
Exploration of possible changes to recruitment
advertising in order to attract more applications to
academic positions from females. Adverts to
include statements such as job share, part-time
considered to encourage females with caring
responsibilities to continue their academic careers.
More applications from
females for research and
academic positions.
HR, Academic
Depts
Administrators
Protected Characteristic: Gender
5. To attract more BME staff to apply for
research and academic positions.
To explore any barriers/challenges that BME staff
may encounter.
More applications from BME
staff for research and
academic positions.
HR
More applications from
and appointments of
BME staff
9
Reviewed
annually in the
recruitment
statistics
presented to
the Equality and
Diversity
Committee
Reviewed
annually in the
recruitment and
Identify and reduce where possible any
potential barriers to individuals from a BME
background applying to academic/research
positions.
To improve the BME disclosure rate of staff who
apply to Warwick.
Protected Characteristic: Race
6. Enhance opportunities for mid-career
females
Protected Characteristics: Gender/Age
Recruitment, retention
and progression of midcareer females
Launch of Women’s Network Group for mid-career
females to discuss career trajectories,
development needs and networking.
MENTORING AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT – TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF RESEARCH
7. Mentoring and Coaching
Improve uptake
(i) Support women/BME/Disabled staff to:
of mentoring &
 Follow up on requests for mentoring
coaching support to
 Raise confidence levels
facilitate career
 To prepare for promotion
Protected Characteristics:
progression of females,
 Provision of one-to-one mentoring
Gender/Race/Disability
BME staff and Disabled
 Development of Job portfolios
Staff. Create a culture
 Access to procedural information
where it is “expected”
that ECRs both mentor
(ii) Develop experience of Early Career
and are mentored.
Researchers on financial decision making.
8. Annual events to raise profiles of female
and BME staff
Protected Characteristic: Gender
Reduce the non-disclosure
rate for ethnicity by clarifying
the importance and use of
the information on our equal
opportunities monitoring
form.
Appropriate forum to consult
on issues raised by group and
outcomes to be measured.
Increase of staff engaged in
mentoring and coaching.
Increase numbers of staff
with protected characteristics
putting themselves forward
for promotion
(i) To celebrate annually an event to recognise
International Women’s Day that engages with
female staff and provides role models.
Prominence and high visibility
of Role Models
(ii) Organise high profile celebration of Athena
SWAN activities and women’s successes in the
University.
An increase in women and
individuals from a BME
background receiving
honorary degrees & a
prominence of role models.
(iii) Nominate outstanding women for honorary
degrees.
10
workforce
profile statistics
presented to
the Equality
and Diversity
Committee
Chair of
Faculties
Reviewed
annually
through the
workforce
profile
(Including
turnover) and
promotion
statistics
presented to
the Equality and
Diversity
Committee
Learning and
Development
Centre (LDC)
/HoDs
2013-2016
HR, Academic
Community,
Registrar’s
Office
2013-2016
9. Managing maternity leave and return to
work
Protected Characteristic: Gender/Maternity
PROMOTION
10. Clarity on Promotion and Career
Progression
To ensure employees
feel welcomed back
into the workplace at a
time when their levels
of confidence may be
low.
Returning Parent Network Group established to
support the transition of parents back into the
work place.
Enable individuals to be
able to continue their
research upon return.
To investigate ways of supporting females to focus
on their research.
All staff clear about
what is required in the
next step in their
careers and how to
achieve it
(i)
Ensure all departments are using two maternity
checklists produced by HR to ensure everything in
place for individual returning to work.
Gain information through focus groups about
ignorance on this issue. Ensure all new staff,
but especially associate professors, feel they
know how to progress to the next steps
through Warwick’s promotion process. To
find out what support is offered/taken up in
departments, what barriers they face, how
these can be overcome or lessened.
Monitoring usage and
feedback from the Returning
Parents Network Group.
HR,
Departments
Checklist
produced
(2013) and
continually
monitored by
HR Advisers
HR, LDC
Annually
Retention of women
returning from maternity or
adoption leave.
Action to be developed if
particular blocks to women’s
progress are identified.
Retention and promotion of
female associate professors.
Protected Characteristic: All
11. Joint Research Project on Gender Issues
Protected Characteristic: Gender
To benchmark and
share best practice
(ii) Ensure recently updated information on
website remains useful.
Investigate the pattern of
promotion applications and
success rates of women.
E&D Adviser,
Athena
Network Group
(iii) Annual Event ‘Demystifying the Promotion
Process’ established to provide academic led
information about what is needed for
promotion at each career stage.
First event held in April 2013
with 40 attendees and 10
speakers. Next session
scheduled for 13 March 2014.
HR, University
Promotion Ctte
(iv) A female Leadership Programme to be
established if there is demand.
Demand and success of a
Women’s Leadership
Programme.
Further consultation to be undertaken by LDC to
see if there is demand for a Women’s Leadership
Programme. Determine best format balance
between meeting, mentoring, shadowing.
To collaborate with staff at Monash University,
Australia, on gender related projects identified
after sharing staff and student data. Addressing
“universal” trends within that data, by comparing
and sharing best practice in policies and processes.
Run one such course annually
HR, Academic
staff, Vice
Chancellors
Advisory Group
(VCAG)
11
To share best practice and
initiatives internationally to
encourage recruitment and
retention of females.
LDC
HR
2013-2016
12. The reduction in female staff through the
progression of grades.
“The Leaky Pipeline” research.
To properly understand
data on the attrition of
women in academia
Protected Characteristic: Gender
ESRC have funded an initial project to investigate
the possibility of establishing a research project to
identify what is underlying the fairly obvious leaky
pipeline data sets in academia.
A one-day international cross-discipline workshop
will be held in June 2014 to determine the next
stage of the research
QUALITY CRITERIA – SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH/CONFERENCES/NETWORKING/FLEXIBLE WORKING
13. Creating Networking Opportunities
(i) Biannual Women in To ensure a ‘grass-roots’ committee is appointed
Science Symposium each year to organise symposia and to monitor
attendance and ensure discussions are engaging
with the research community.
Protected Characteristics: All
14. Conference attendance is essential for
academics but can be difficult if staff have
childcare responsibilities
Protected Characteristics: All
15. Flexible Working Options
Protected Characteristics: All
Publications to inform and
address the underlying
reasons of underrepresentation of females in
all disciplines.
ESRC/Warwick
academics/HR
plus PDRA
employed on
project
2013-2016
High attendance at events.
Student/Postdoctoral
community
2013-2016
Prominent publicity and web
presence for events.
(ii) Support post-doc
forums in
departments
To continue to help with funding for departmental
events.
Informed and engaged
communities
LDC/Research
Support
Services (RSS)
(iii) Termly Welcome
Lunches for PDRAs
Ensure appropriate funding is available
Research Staff
Forum/RSS
More parents attending
conferences (which are
essential to their
academic & research
careers)
An annual fund has been established to assist with
payments for extra childcare costs incurred when
individuals attending conferences, workshops
(£100 per claim).
Prominence of role models.
Attendance. Informed and
engaged communities
Measured by take up of fund.
Athena
Network Group
2013-2016
That all staff
understand the options
available to them to
work flexibly.
The Flexible Working Policy was updated in May
2012 to give greater clarity to the fact that parents
of children under 17 or disabled children under 18
or carers have a legal right to apply for flexible
working and that the Policy gives clear guidance
and links to appropriate government websites.
Ensure this information is in
Induction packs for new staff
and clearly understood.
Communications with
existing staff.
Monitor any increase in the
request for flexible working
hours
HR, all
departments
Policy updated
May 2012. Will
be updated
regularly in line
with legislative
changes.
Communication
via the HR
website and
induction.
HR presenting
on parental
leave and
flexible working
12
16. Occasional Childcare
Protected Characteristics: All
Occasional childcare
available to parents
wishing to attend
workshops/conferences
linked with their work
Monitor effectiveness of new initiative: University
Nursery now takes a child on a one-off basis if a
parent needs cover to attend a conference and the
child does not usually use the facilities.
13
Childcare is not an issue for
local conference attendance,
measured by actual take up
of places on a one-off basis
University
Nursery, Athena
Network
to Returning
Parents
Network-Spring
Term 2014
Uptake
reviewed and
reported
annually
APPENDIX 2
EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
The University is legally obliged to eliminate unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability, gender
and disability. In addition it is obliged to promote good race relations, promote positive attitudes towards
disabled persons, and encourage participation by disabled persons in public life. Please complete this
form considering the six equality strands of age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief and
sexual orientation. This form will be required by committees approving new policies.
Names of
policy/practice/
procedure
Equal Opportunities Code of Practice on Preparing REF Submissions
Stage 1 – identifying
policies, practices and
procedures, data
gathering, assessing
likely impact
What are you trying to
To create a clear and concise Code of Practice that informs staff of the
achieve through the
procedure for selecting staff for inclusion in REF submissions. The Code
policy/practice/procedure? of Practice is intended to demonstrate fair and transparent mechanisms for
staff selection.
Who is intended to
Academic and research staff who may belong to one of the protected
benefits from the
characteristics groups.
proposals and how?
How relevant is this to the Very relevant – staff will be given the opportunity to confidentially disclose
University’s duties to
any special circumstances that they consider has impacted on their ability
promote equality and
to produce the required number of outputs for the REF. The University
diversity? (If not
intends for the Code of Practice to eliminate discrimination, harassment
applicable please explain and victimisation and to advance equality.
why.)
What information do you
For monitoring purposes the University has information on staff who have
have on the people this
disclosed disabilities, taken maternity, adoption and long term sick leave or
policy/practice/procedure
who have had a career break. The Special Circumstances Form which will
will affect? (Please attach be issued to staff eligible to be entered into the REF will give staff a further
copies where necessary.) opportunity to complete outlining any mitigating factors and will also
provide an opportunity for staff to disclose a disability or ‘other’ special
circumstances that they may have not previously disclosed.
Taking into account the information you have gathered what is the likely impact on each of the nine
protected characteristics? There are some sample questions shown below but these are not
exhaustive.
Age – is there anything which excludes any
Early Career Researchers, who have not had the length of
particular age group?
service to enable them to fully meet the specified number of
outputs.
Think about terminology/tone to ensure you
It should be noted that an individual can be of any age to be
do not alienate any one group.
considered an ‘early career researcher’, but the higher
percentage of these appointments tend to be individuals
Does the practice reinforce or challenge
under 30 years of age.
stereotyped perceptions of individuals of any
The outputs for Early Career Researchers is factored in
age group?
under the Special Circumstances process.
14
Disability - are there any barriers for
individuals with a disability either physical or
non physical?
Is there anything that means individuals with
a disability will not be able to participate or
will be less successful?
Think about the terminology and the format
information is presented in and whether it is
available in different formats e.g. braille,
audio.
Staff with disabilities (who have previously disclosed or not)
will have the opportunity to disclose factors that may have
hampered their output in terms of the REF. These factors
will be disclosed only to the Special Circumstances Group
for consideration. This information will be treated in strict
confidence.
The Code of Practice and Special Circumstances form will
be made available both electronically and hard copy.
Sex - are men/women disadvantaged by the
policy and practice? What is the make-up of
the people affected by the policy?
Have you thought about factors such as
childcare, flexible working?
Maternity and Adoption leave has been factored into the
reduced output plan as proposed by REF. Female staff
within the University do have the opportunity to request
flexible working hours.
Does the practice reinforce or challenge
stereotyped perceptions of women and men?
Race - Are people disadvantaged because
of their ethnicity or nationality? e.g. language
Support may be required when English is not the first
language for employees to meet the required standards.
Consider cultural differences e.g. eye
contact, body language.
Do eligibility criteria reduce the participation
of different ethnic groups?
Religion and belief - factors affecting
N/A
dress e.g. uniforms; factors affecting food.
Elements that may affect religious
festivals/prayer times e.g inability to take
annual leave or breaks at particular times.
Consideration of different beliefs e.g
extended bereavement times
Sexual Orientation – does the practice
N/A
reinforce or challenge stereotyped
perceptions of sexual orientation?
Are all the “benefits” of the policy, practice or
procedure available to all staff or students?
Eg not just having something available to
wives or husbands, but partners as well.
Think about the terminology used.
Gender Reassignment – if a person is
undergoing or intends to undergo or who has
undergone gender reassignment (the
transition from one gender to another) how
will this policy, practice or procedure affect
them?
Gender Reassignment has been factored into the reduced
output plan as proposed by REF.
Consider people who may be absent from
work due to this reason.
15
Marriage and Civil Partnership –
N/A
marriage is defined as a ‘union between a
man and a woman’. Same sex couples can
have their relationships recognised as ‘civil
partnerships’ therefore under legislation civil
partners must be treated the same as
married couple.
Will this policy/procedure impact upon
someone in a civil partnership the same way
as a married couple?
Consider that single people are not protected
by the legislation.
Pregnancy and maternity – Pregnancy
refers to the period of time when a woman is
expecting a baby; maternity refers to the
period of time after the birth and is linked to
maternity leave in the employment context.
Stage 2 – responding to the results,
feedback and publishing
If you have identified an adverse impact
what changes do you intend making to
mitigate the impacts?
If you do not intend making any changes
please give your justification here (NB
you must consult HR before choosing to
do this)
What methods have you used to gather
feedback about the final
policy/procedure/ practice?
How have you published the results
within your department? (Please copy
this form electronically to Sandra
Beaufoy HR who will publish it on the
EIA website.)
Stage 3 – monitoring and review
When will you next monitor and/or review
this EIA? (NB. You must carry out an
EIA once every three years as a
minimum.)
Date of assessment
Assessment carried out by:
Maternity and Adoption leave has been factored into the
reduced output plan as proposed by REF.
A clear framework has been supplied by HEFCE REF and
the Code of Practice reflects these requirements.
Individual special circumstances will be given
consideration by a Committee who have undertaken
Equality and Diversity Training and who have a clear
understanding of issues that may impact on an employees
output.
Feedback will be through staff consultation and through
acceptance of the Code of Practice by the appropriate
HEFCE REF panels.
The results of this EIA will be published on the REF
website of the University of Warwick and will also
accompany the REF Code of Practice which will be
distributed to employees eligible for the REF.
The review of this process will be ongoing through the
timeframe of the REF exercise.
21 February 2012
Sandra Beaufoy, HR Adviser, Equality and Diversity
16
APPENDIX 3: Definitions of Clearly Defined and Complex Special Circumstances
Clearly Defined Special Circumstances
 Early career researcher (started career as an independent researcher on or after 1 August 2009)
 Junior clinical academic staff who have not gained a Certificate of Completion of Training by 31
October 2013
 Part time employment
 Career break or secondment outside of the higher education sector in which the individual did
not undertake academic research
 Maternity leave, statutory adoption leave, and additional paternity leave (taken by partners of
new mothers or co-adopters)
Complex Special Circumstances
 Disability (including conditions such as cancer and chronic fatigue)
 Ill health or injury
 Mental health conditions
 Constraints relating to pregnancy, maternity, breastfeeding, adoption, paternity or childcare in
addition to periods of maternity, statutory adoption or additional paternity leave taken. This
could include for example, pregnancy related illness and health and safety restrictions in
laboratory and field work.
 Other caring responsibilities (including caring for an elderly or disabled relative)
 Gender reassignment
17
APPENDIX 4 – Tables (All figures are based on headcount)
Table 5: The total pool of staff eligible for the REF split by gender and grade level
GRADE
FA 7
GENDER
Number of staff
submitted in the REF
with grade level
Number of staff
excluded in the REF
with grade level
Total number of staff
eligible to be entered
into REF with grade
Level
FA 8
FA 9
Clinical
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Other
Grades
M
F
TOTAL
STAFF
132
66
218
112
319
70
23
4
30
19
993
12
16
64
45
32
11
17
8
1
3
209
144
82
282
157
351
81
40
12
31
22
1202
Clearly Defined Circumstances
240 clearly defined special circumstances forms were submitted for consideration. Of those 240,
206 staff were subsequently included in the REF and 34 excluded. Table 7 below indicates that
there was a higher proportion of females excluded from the REF (20%) as opposed to males (9%).
Table 6: Data for Clearly Defined Cases
Male
Female
Total
Total
132
108
240
Submitted
120 (91%)
86 (80%)
206 (86%)
Excluded (%)
12 (9%)
11 (20%)
34 (14%)
Table 7 indicates the number of BME staff who were included and excluded from submission to the
REF, with Table 9 showing staff with declared disabilities included in the REF, noting that none of
the excluded staff had disclosed a disability.
Table 7: BME
Total
51
Submitted
40 (78%)
Table 8:
Declared
Disability
Total
Submitted
Excluded
Declared
disabled
6
6 (100%)
0 (0%)
BME
Excluded (%)
11 (22%)
18
Table 9 indicates the age ranges of staff, noting that the highest proportion of staff excluded from
submission to the REF are in the 46-55 age range (38%).
Table 9: Age range of staff who submitted Clearly Defined Special Circumstances Forms
Age Band
<21
21-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
65+
Total
Total
0
1
141
72
16
4
6
240
Complex Circumstances
42 complex special circumstances forms were submitted. Of those 42 cases, 19 were for staff
included in the REF and 23 for staff excluded. Table 11 once again, indicates that there was a
slightly higher proportion of females excluded from the REF (57.69%) as opposed to males
(50.00%).
Table 10: Data for Complex Cases
Total
16
26
42
Male
Female
Total
Submitted
8 (50%)
11 (42%)
19 (45%)
Excluded
8 (50%)
15 (58%)
23 (55%)
Table 11: Data for Complex Cases - BME
BME
Total
4
Submitted
1 (25%)
Excluded
3 (75%)
Table 12 shows that for staff submitting special circumstances forms declaring a
complex situation, 7 staff members declared a disability, of which 5 were included in the
REF.
Table 12: Data for Complex Cases – Declared Disabilities
Declared
Disability
Total
7
Submitted
5 (71%)
Excluded
2 (29%)
Table 13 demonstrates the age range of staff submitting complex special circumstances,
19
with the highest proportion of staff (71%) being in the 46-55 age range.
Table 13: Age range of staff who submitted Complex Special Circumstances Forms
Age Band
<21
21-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
65+
Total
Total
0
0
2
7
24
7
2
42
20