Diversity Report

Diversity Report Contents Page

1. Executive Summary Page 1 2. The Case for Change Page 3 3. Where are we now Page 4 4. Good Practice from other sectors Page 5 5. Recommendations for action Page 7 5.1Recommendations to the Co-ordinating Committee Page 7 6. A Good Practice Guide for Students’ Union Page 8 7. Summary Page 10 Appendices Appendix I Detailed Research and Findings Page 12 Appendix II Relevant Legislation Page 24 Appendix III List of Useful Resources Page 27 Appendix IV Diversity Monitoring Questionnaire Page 28 The Diversity Action Working Group The 2005/06 initial working group comprised Lesley Dixon, General Manager, Leeds Students’ Union, Pete Fisher-Godwin, General Manager, Bradford Students’ Union, Laura Hyde, Acting General Manager, King’s College London Students’ Union, Rak Mistry, Marketing Manager, De Montfort Students’ Union, Andrea Peirce, Membership Services Manager, Plymouth Students’ Union, and Amanda Shilton, Deputy Chief Executive, NUS Services.

Diversity Report 1. Executive Summary 1.1The motion and mandate The AMSU AGM 2005 passed a motion noting increased diversity in both society and the student population. This did not seem to be reflected in Students’ Unions. Anecdotally, Unions struggled to recruit people from black and minority ethnic groups, and struggled to recruit women to senior management positions. This needed to be addressed, or the mismatch would grow and the movement face a crisis of legitimacy. A long term strategy was required. Conference approved the establishment of a working group to report to AGM 2006 with data and information, benchmarked against other similar sectors. The group were asked to research other sectors to identify effective strategies and practices, and to make recommendations for change. 1.2 Scope of the Report The motion questioned the relevance of Students’ Unions to student members, and the role and purpose of Students’ Unions is certainly a legitimate topic for AMSU members professionally. Therefore research was conducted into the diversity of Boards and other voluntary committees, and employment patterns in other sectors compared with Students’ Unions, as well as looking at the distribution of the student population. However, acting within AMSU’s remit, has focused its efforts primarily on the area of employment. Although the motion referred primarily to gender and ethnicity, the group considered the following kinds of discrimination to be within its scope:

• Racial or minority ethnic heritage • Sexual (gender) • Age • Disability • Sexual orientation • Religion or belief

Given available timescales, investigative work was undertaken on ethnic minority, disability and gender research. Research into other areas remains to be done. However, the good practice identified is applicable to all disadvantaged groups. 1.3 Summary of key findings The group found evidence that the demographic make up of students’ unions still reflects historical patterns of racial and sexual discrimination, and also reflects role stereotyping and the unequal patterns of access to higher education for people of minority ethnic heritage. Students’ unions are not unusual in these patterns. Despite rafts of equality legislation, beginning with the Equal Pay Act 1970, neither women nor minority groups are proportionately represented at senior levels within many sectors of the economy, in either the public or private domain. One in four UK Higher Education students is black or of minority ethnic heritage. 57% of students are female. This is not reflected in students’ unions’ permanent staff. The students’ union workforce is predominantly white, aged under forty, and able-bodied. For officers and student staff, it seems that participation rates for people from minority ethnic heritage are higher. There are roughly equal numbers of male and female officers, but men are more likely to be Presidents. There are slightly higher numbers of female staff overall, but men are more likely to be managers and younger.

In the voluntary sector generally, 50% of senior managers are female.1 In Students’ Unions overall, the figure is 30%. The larger the union, the less likely that the permanent staff team will be headed by a female. The current position causes already acute awareness and discomfort in many unions. They are anxious to address this challenge. 1.4 Summary of recommendations 1.4.1 Leadership from the AMSU Co-ordinating committee The quality and commitment of leadership will be at the heart of change. Change must take place at all levels within the movement. The national organisations too have a responsibility both to lead and to make resource available. Ensuring that there is a diverse workforce is not an optional add-on, but an integral part of the management agenda. The way forward is the time-honoured way of bringing about any serious organisational and cultural change – commitment, plans, action, and review. It is recommended that the co-ordinating committee continue to lead this initiative, and that the diversity action group continue, for a period of two years, to begin the implementation of change. 1.4.2 Action plan frameworks In November 2005 the Cabinet Office unveiled a “10 point plan” to address diversity issues within the civil service,. The ten points, in summary are:target setting, measurement and evaluation; diversity champion’s network; leadership and accountability; recruitment; development; behaviour and culture change; diversity impact of efficiency and relocation reviews; mainstreaming and communications. 1.4.3 Delivery and sustainability So there is no shortage of solutions. The key issue for the movement is, given our structures and resources, how to deliver effective sustainable change. This will only come about through a long term programme to develop skill, knowledge and networks at both national and local levels. There is a real will to bring about change. The question is, not the ends, but the means. 1.4.4 Working together on an opt-in basis. It is proposed that an “opt- in group” should be established, for those Unions that would like to participate actively in developing the next steps. There would almost certainly have to be a charge for membership, for which Unions could seek direct support from institutions. Further work needs to be done to develop a programme of activity. The diversity action group is actively looking for funding sources to help support this work, but should this not be forthcoming then it is proposed that work continues on a voluntary basis. Diversity and social inclusion is a key item on both Government and the University agendas. There are many groups and individuals within the sector to help and support. The Equality Challenge Unit, established by HEFCE funding and institutional representative bodies, has been working with the group and is very willing to work with students unions. Unions are also strongly advised to make local links, particularly within their institutions. 1.4.5 A Good Practice Guide for Unions Using the Cabinet Office framework as a basis, the Action Group has put together an initial code of good practice for students’ unions.

1 Stephen Bubb, CEO, ACEVO, February 2006 in public speech

2. The Case for Change 2.1 The legal case for change There are a number of statutory provisions which cover various aspects of equality of opportunity for different groups in society. In addition to those mentioned above, for women, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and Sex Discrimination Act 1975 prohibit discrimination in the area of employment on gender grounds. Protection on grounds of religious belief came into force via the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and for sexual orientation via the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. Employment discrimination on grounds of age will become illegal in October 2006. Over recent years, following the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence, there has been a philosophical shift in legislation. Legislation now places a positive duty on public sector authorities to promote equality. Students’ unions are not named within the legislation, but Universities, explicitly, are. However, students’ unions will be covered in the guidance produced in preparation for the forthcoming Charities Act, the “Hallmarks of an Effective Charity”. Hallmark 2, “fit for purposes” states that an effective charity “recognises and promotes diversity in beneficiaries, staff and volunteers”2 Universities could also impose a positive duty on Unions as part of a contractual relationship. Unions would therefore be wise to act as if they were covered by this legal requirement. 2. 2 The business case for change Social inclusion is high on the government’s policy agenda, and diversity a live issue for Universities. Universities are currently under investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality because of unequal patterns of access3. Up to 2008, Universities are incentivised by the government, via the Aimhigher fund, to address this. Unless the movement effectively addresses this agenda, Unions have diminishing relevance to a significant and growing section of the student body. This is likely to lead to unions’ legitimate remit to represent students being called into question by institutions. This is a genuine and significant risk to the movement’s legitimacy and political leverage, both locally and nationally. 2.3 The moral case for change A belief in equality of opportunity and equal access for all, regardless of gender, racial origin, orientation, disability, or age, is a fundamental premise of the movement. As managers within Students’ Unions we therefore have a moral responsibility to ensure that that is the reality within our own organisations, both as employers and via the services we deliver. As managers and leaders within this community, there is for us a moral imperative to understand how our service offering can impact on diverse sectors of the student community, to ensure equality of access. The Union is the gateway for the wider student experience. Through the Union, students can become a member of community on campus and, through that, the wider community. The student movement has the power to transform lives, both through the impact it can make on education, and the impact on the personal development of individuals. We need to ensure that all students are, and feel, equally able to access everything that the union has to offer.

2 Hallmarks of an effective charity, Charity Commission, 2004. 3 For detailed analysis see Appendix I

3. Where we are now The group used a range of tools to look at both the numbers and distributions of women, black and minority ethnic people, people with disabilities and older people employed within unions or elected as officers. In addition, insight interviews were conducted with people women, people with disabilities and black and minority ethnic staff, to gain a better understanding of the issues from the perspectives of those groups. Desk research was undertaken, to benchmark students’ unions against a range of other organisations and sectors. A detailed account of this work, including sources and references is set out in Appendix I. The group’s investigations supported the assumptions of the AGM motion. There are few students’ union BME staff (6% of permanent staff, 4% managers), but higher proportions of officers (18%) and student staff (30%.) Women form the bulk of union staff (58%) but fewer are managers (42%). The larger, in commercial terms, the union, the less likely it is that the General Manager will be a woman (one of the ten largest). 30% of General Managers overall are women, but they are concentrated in very small unions. The male female officer ratio is roughly even. More Presidents are male. The numbers reporting themselves as having a disability were very low (7% of the quantitative survey) and the age profile of respondents showed only 15% of respondents to be over 50. Almost half of permanent staff were under 30, with another quarter between 31- 40. This trend was particularly noticeable amongst men. 96% of executive officers were under 30. There are many relevant comparisons which can be drawn upon to provide context for these findings. Within higher education, in 2005, 17.2% of students are British of BME heritage (and 12% international students) – 9% in the general population. There is a very uneven spread across the sector. The incidence of disability in the general population is around 20%. At this stage, no research was carried out either to look at numbers, or to gain insight, into either sexual orientation or religious belief, although discrimination on either grounds in employment is now unlawful. The view was taken that such research should not be undertaken, or information held, until a later point in time, due to the highly sensitive and personal nature of the information. It appears that within students unions there is gender role segregation, although in comparison with some other sectors, women are more likely to become managers. For example, 9 % of local government Chief Executives, 15% of University Vice Chancellors, and 17% of Trade Union General Secretaries are female. However, in the voluntary sector as a whole, 50% of Chief Executives are women. For officers, 30% of local councillors are women. The group found no evidence of overt or conscious discrimination. The structural pattern that emerges reflects both trends within society in general, and within the HE sector in particular. A number of factors were identified which were common across all the equality strands. These were, recruitment, progression, and work – life balance. The personal experiences of the insight interview respondents suggested that both BME staff and staff with disabilities had broadly positive experiences of working within their unions, once they had been recruited, and positive experiences of recruitment. The small survey conducted on Unions’ recruitment practices indicates that the chief constraint is the lack of applicants, rather than discriminatory practice during the process. Progression was identified as an issue, particularly by women and BME staff. There were two particularly interesting aspects to this, one, the role which volunteering within the movement can

play in facilitating progression, and therefore the role which the national organisations could play in widening these opportunities and encouraging people to stand. The second was work life balance, perceived as very supportive to women staff within unions generally, but very difficult, in reality, at senior levels. Unions were perceived as operating a long hours culture (again, a reflection of British society), and there was an underlying current indicating that women are preferring not to apply for the mot senior roles, feeling that the price, in terms of general life balance, may be too high. 4. Good practice from other sectors There is a wealth of experience and knowledge from other sectors from which the movement can learn and benefit. The most innovation is in the public sector, forced to be active by the legal “positive duty” requirement. Below are some examples of good practice that the movement could adopt 4.1 Comprehensive action plans The Cabinet Office and the NHS have both published “ten point plans”. These offer a comprehensive framework to address discrimination.4 The elements of the cabinet office plan are targets; measurement and evaluation; diversity champion’s network; leadership and accountability; recruitment; development; behaviour and culture change; diversity impact of efficiency and relocation reviews; mainstreaming; and communications. 4.2 Leadership and Accountability Leaders make change happen. The most important element of change is without doubt, strong, committed, effective leaders. In October 2005 the CIPD published a study5 highlighting the pivotal influence of senior managers’ personal behaviours and values, which set the tone for the organisation. 4.3 Target setting, monitoring and evaluation The Civil Service has set clear targets for diversity, focusing specifically on targets for diversity at senior levels. These targets reflect the population as a whole.6 Diversity at senior levels makes change visible and sends a powerful message. Targets force change at all levels and across all strands of diversity and equality. To deliver sustained change, targets must also be set across levels of seniority. Targets are not “quotas” – they work at a population, not an individual, level. In themselves, they obviously don’t deliver change. Consistent measurement and evaluation of progress, and intervention, is essential for change to become embedded. 4.4 Champions’ Networks In addition to the ultimate accountability of the permanent secretary, each department in the Civil Service has appointed a diversity champion, at very senior level. Their role is to drive the implementation of the plan through the department. Champions meet regularly as a group to review progress, and continuously develop solutions. 4.5 Recruitment A time of recruitment is a real opportunity. The law provides for positive action to actively seek out and send the right messages to the most diverse talent pool. For example, the Environment Agency successfully increased the number of places taken by BME trainees on a flood risk

4 Delivering a diverse civil service – a 10 point plan. Cabinet Office November 2005 5 Julie Griffiths Include diversity in managers’ goals People Management October 2005 6 Civil Action Waqar Azmi, Chief Diversity Officer in People Management (date unknown -2005?)

management course to 20%, historically having struggled to attract such candidates. It did so by ring-fencing opportunities for people from under-represented groups. 7 4.6 Training The Opportunity Now report recommended that equality training should be mandatory for all managers and should incorporate both legal and behavioural issues8. 4.7 Staff development and progression – positive action for disadvantaged groups There are a number of positive actions which organisations can legally undertake for people from disadvantaged groups, to give those individuals help and support with their own personal development. 4.7.1 Mentoring – A National Mentoring Consortium was established 10 years ago at the University of East London. As part of this programme, experienced staff mentor undergraduate students for a period of 6 months, a two - hour monthly meeting the minimum requirement. Mentors receive training and accreditation from the University. Current participating employers include John Lewis, ITN, the RAF, and HSBC.9 There are a number of other, similar schemes nationally. The NHS operates a mentoring scheme as part of its 10 point plan on racial equality. This includes a national leadership programme for ethnic minority staff, “Breaking Through”. Mentors do not have to be, themselves, from a disadvantaged group. Case studies do demonstrate success for individuals on the schemes, for example increased self-confidence and new and better jobs, although no collated data is available. 10

4.7.2 Role Modelling British Gas has created its own Engineering Academy. To encourage diversity in its applicants, they encourage volunteer trainees to go out and talk to schools, to encourage a wider range of people to consider engineering as a career11. 4.7.3 Volunteering –the literature makes much of the opportunity that volunteering can bring to enable individuals to raise their profiles and skills 4.1.8 Creating a zero tolerance culture The goal of the Civil Service is a lasting, sustainable culture, in which no bullying or discrimination is tolerated, and where everyone feels valued for their personal contribution. This they aim to achieve through high quality training and the embedding of diversity and equality goals for all staff. 4.1.9 Mainstreaming The CIPD report12 highlighted the importance of setting diversity goals, integrated into organisations’ overall business objectives, to ensure that line managers took responsibility for integrating and communicating information about equality and diversity to their staff 4.10 Communication The Civil Service has developed a communication plan to ensure clear and consistent messages on diversity and equality, cascaded to each department.

7 ibid 8 Julie Griffiths, ibid 9 Race for Opportunity Update, Winter 2004. 10 See, for example, Minority report, the story of Yvonne Coghill, in People Management, September 2005 11 Race for opportunity, special focus on development, Winter 2004 12 Julie Griffiths, People Management, ibid

5. Recommendations for action The goal is straightforward. First there is a need to attract and retain a more diverse workforce. Secondly we need to ensure that historically disadvantaged groups, whether students or staff, have equal access to opportunities to progress within the student movement. It would be easy to conclude that because of the movement’s structure, and fragmented control, that effective action is impossible. This is not true. It is, however, fair to say that this throws up challenges, but none that could not be resolved, as long as the will is there. To achieve our objectives, we need to look at what is needed at national level and how it can be delivered. To complement this, we also need to look at how local Unions can act, and what tools and support will be needed at that level.

5.1 Recommendations to the Co-ordinating Committee 5.1 Leadership and accountability The AMSU co-ordination committee should assume leadership of, and be held accountable for, the progress of this agenda. The committee should assume responsibility for ensuring implementation. Through the Senior Managers’ Code of Conduct, AMSU should ensure that the diversity action is integrated into the core responsibilities of senior management. 5.2 Target setting, monitoring and evaluation AMSU should set an example by developing and delivering its own diversity plan. Diversity targets for its volunteer base should be set and measured, and progress reviewed annually. 5.3 Positive action AMSU should actively and explicitly encourage involvement from individuals from diverse groups, by encouraging and supporting self help groups, and facilitating role modelling and mentoring. 5.4 Establishment of a mentoring exchange AMSU should also develop and facilitate a mentoring exchange to foster links between those who wish to mentor and those who require a mentor. To support everyone’s professional development this facility should be available for everyone, and positively promoted to people from disadvantaged groups. 5.5 Communication AMSU should review its communication policy, to consider whether direct communication would increase awareness of, and take up of its services, by a wider and more diverse pool of staff. 5.6 Partnership with the Equality Challenge Unit The Government has challenged Universities to address diversity. This is being co-ordinated by the Equality Challenge Unit. Links have been made by the action group, and these should be actively fostered. This will help to identify Universities with particular areas of expertise and develop and strengthen links with them. 5.7 Diversity Action Working Group It is proposed that a small diversity action working group continue for at least two more years to progress this agenda. This should be kept under review. Actual membership may change. 5.8 A Diversity Opt-in Group To help and support Students’ Unions to progress and implement best practice, it is proposed that an opt-in group be established.

Membership of the opt-in group would provide unions with:

• Dedicated support, training and coaching to develop and implement their own diversity action plans

• National networking opportunities for diversity champions • Support to identify and develop partnerships with Universities • Opportunity for learning and sharing good practice and experiences • Continuous development of tool kit to assist

Each Union that chose to participate would, in addition to the General Manager, nominate a diversity champion, ideally a senior manager, to drive the change process through the Union. AMSU should support a network, ideally on a regional basis, of diversity champions, who will be able to meet and share ideas and experiences for mutual support. Ideally, it is hoped that funding could be identified for a full time post for two years to shape, develop, and begin implementation of this agenda. National funding is being sought to assist with costs for a two year period, but so far, all enquiries have drawn a blank. Should no funding be identified then it is proposed that operational responsibility for developing and delivering the programme should lie with the Diversity Action Working Group, but realistically this will mean a slower implementation timescale. 6. A Good Practice Guide for Students’ Unions This has been developed using the frameworks of the civil service and NHS as a basis, and applying the concepts to students unions. 6.1 Leadership and accountability Ultimately, accountability in students’ unions rests with Executive Officers. However, General Managers, as leaders in Students’ Unions should also take personal responsibility for the diversity agenda. Senior managers, as leaders, are responsible for setting the tone and expectations of the Union, and be mindful that their own behaviour and values, establishes expectations of others. Leaders should ensure that within each organisation there is no tolerance of bullying or discriminatory behaviour, and that this is supported by policy and practice. Senior managers should work with student officers and diversity champions, where appointed, to benchmark and assess their own organisation’s performance, and to develop and implement an action plan to address shortfalls against good practice. 6.2 Target setting Unions should set and publish diversity targets, for staff, officers and volunteers. There are many areas in which targets could be set and monitored. This includes human resource areas, eg, recruitment practice, but also progression and role profile, access to training and development opportunities, pay, training spend, and annual surveys of staff profile. Unions should also monitor participation rates in the democratic process,. Consideration must include, in each case, as to the common routes “in” e.g. union councils, student staff, sports and societies, and other volunteering and involvement opportunities. Specific targets for each Union should be based on the demographic of profile of the student intake for the institution, and of the surrounding area13. 6.3 Measurement and evaluation

13 The figures are published annually by HESA for each University and are available online from www.statistics.gov for each institution, and from census data for the area.

Delivery plans must be developed to achieve the targets. Progress towards targets should be consistently and regularly reviewed, and action taken to address shortcomings. 6.4 Champions In addition to the commitment, leadership and drive the of the general manager, in many Unions it will be necessary for day to day implementation and development to be in the hands of a diversity champion who has the time and space to do the detailed work to progress the agenda. This person will be supported by the champions network. 6.5 Partnership Diversity and widening participation is a major agenda item for Universities and government. By working closely in partnership with their institution, Unions should not only be able to access help and support but also contribute to outreach work undertaken by the institutions within local disadvantaged communities. Up until 2008 funding is available for this work via the Aimhigher fund. There are also other networks established within higher education, in particular HEEON (Higher Education Equal Opportunities Network) and regional networks supported by the Equality Challenge Unit, to make links with for mutual support. 6.6 Recruitment and selection Any recruitment provides an opportunity for change. This requires good policy and practice, including use of positive action. All recruitment should be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness, including who applies, who is selected for interview, and who appointed. Specific training should be provided for recruiters, to ensure a full understanding of the organisational approach, and at minimum, of legal obligations. 6.7 Training To achieve cultural change, there must be training to ensure that all officers and staff are aware of the issues and understand the need for change. 6.8 Development and progression of staff and volunteers (positive action) Unions can support individuals from disadvantaged groups through positive action. This might include specific training for women or BME staff in, eg networking, career development, assertiveness, for example, or by sourcing mentors for all such individuals. Volunteering opportunities, nationally and locally, can offer individual exposure, and the experience to develop skills to progress. People generally volunteer because they are asked. Therefore it is important to ensure that people from minority groups are encouraged to volunteer and supported in their volunteering. 6.9 Mainstreaming Unions should ensure that diversity is embedded into their strategic and annual plans, and becomes part of the objectives of each person, and not sidelined as one person’s responsibility. 6.10 Communications Unions need to develop a communications policy, to ensure that the images portrayed, via all channels and from all departments, send out the intended message, which is consistent with encouraging a wide range of students.

7 Summary 7.1 There are no easy templates to wave a magic wand and guarantee the long term, deep, cultural change which is needed. The requirement, both at nationally and local level, is for sustained sheer hard work, across a range of activities, over a considerable period of time. Real leadership drive, and action will be needed. The path we must take is the learning and development wheel, turned, consistently, over a period of years, by committed and effective leaders, monitoring, benchmarking, identifying best practice, target setting, and driving action. Systems and structures need to be put in place now, nationally and at every Union, to embed this process into the mainstream management agenda.

Appendices

Appendix I Detailed research and findings 1. Approach Research methodology Quantitative survey To take a broad snapshot of the current profile of staff (including student staff) and officers, a questionnaire was developed and uploaded onto a website.14 It required individuals to complete it for themselves on line, and a letter was circulated to all General Managers asking them to forward it onto all staff, including student staff, and Executive Officers. In line with current ACAS recommendations, data was collected on gender, age, disability and ethnic background, but not on sexual orientation or religious views. Qualitative research To support this work, a number of other research activities were carried out. First, a number of semi-structured, qualitative telephone surveys were carried out with people from BME heritage, women, and people with disabilities. The purpose of this was to gain from individuals a sense of the issues from their perspective. These were supported by a discussion group held at the Black students’ conference in November 2005. Investigation into current practices Using the HR mailbase, Students’ Unions were asked about their recruitment and staff management monitoring, to enquire to what extent measurement already takes place. Replies were received from 13 Unions and these were followed up by telephone interviewing to ascertain how Unions used the information from their monitoring. Benchmarking The group undertook wide-ranging research to identify appropriate comparators and best practice.

14 Reproduced, for information, at Appendix IV

What we found Who are our people? 696 responses to the quantitative survey were received from a total of 78 Unions. From 22 Unions there was only one response. No claims are made for the statistical validity of the output, but nevertheless, the outcome of the survey broadly supported the anecdotal impression that, as a movement, that in our permanent staff teams we employ few people from ethnic minorities or disabilities, and that women are concentrated in non-senior roles. People of black or other minority ethnic heritage The actual numbers of people of BME heritage responding to the staff questionnaire was 74 respondents out of 696, or 10.6%. When this was further analysed, 4% of senior staff and 6% of other staff said they were from a non-white background. There were higher percentages of student staff (30%), and Executive Officers (18%). In both instances the best represented minority group was Asian or Asian British. There were no Executive officers respondents at all who declared themselves Chinese, and only 6 people altogether. Of the Asian and Asian British respondents, more than half said they were of Indian origin or heritage. How does this compare? Student participation in higher education 17.2% of Higher Education students in 2004/5 were of BME heritage. In addition, 12% are overseas students, of which the largest number are Chinese.15 However, a simple analysis of the aggregate gives a misleading picture, as there is a pattern of segregation of access to University, for black and ethnic minority heritage Britons. For example, 48.2% of home undergraduate students at Bradford University are of BME origin16. Kings College London 2004 figures showed 53% white, 9% black, 23% Asian, inter alia.17 Over 60% of students at London Metropolitan are from ethnic minorities. This contrasts with Bristol University, where the figure is 7%. Furthermore, there are also sharp differentials between minority groups. Bristol’s 7% BME is just under 1,000 students. Of these, 15 described themselves as Bangladeshi, 20, black Caribbean, 45 Pakistani. In the whole of the Russell group universities, there are fewer than 1500 black Caribbean students.18

The numbers of students in HE outweigh that in the general working population (9%). The representation of Indian and Chinese students is higher than in the white population. Ethnic minority students are concentrated in law, business, pharmacy and social work. They are much less likely to student English or arts subjects. Studies into ethnic minority participation carried out at Bristol University concluded that there are four patterns of segregation, which at root reflect the outcomes of schooling, (‘A’ level scores) linked to class and geography. These are; inequalities between the new and old universities; concentrations of ethnic minority students in London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester; inequalities across subjects; and inequalities between different minority groups. The Commission for Racial Equality is launching an investigation into this segregation.

15 NUS Services Ltd. HESA statistics 16 Bradford University: Confronting Inequality, Celebrating Diversity 17 Kings College Equality and Diversity Strategy 2005 18 Education Guardian January 3rd 2006 (source, HESA)

Staff representation in higher education Up to date research on this was hard to find, but a study from 1999 found that ethnic minorities form over 6 per cent of academic staff but are concentrated in fixed-term posts. 68 per cent of non-white non-British academic staff are on fixed term contracts. Nearly half of British ethnic minorities are on fixed term contracts compared to a third of their white peers. Ethnic minorities with nine or more years of service are half as likely as their white peers to be professors. Groups such as Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Black Caribbeans and 'Black Others' (mainly British-born of Caribbean descent) are half as likely or less to be in higher education posts as their white peers. Groups such as Chinese and Africans are better represented than their population size. More than one in four minority respondents reported that they had personally experienced discrimination in job applications; 15 per cent said the same about promotion and nearly one in five reported experiences of racial harassment from staff or students.

The study found that a third of institutions did not have a specific racial equality policy, but almost all have equal opportunities policies.

The situation is improving among younger age groups, where ethnic minorities are generally better represented, and in subjects such as medicine. 19 Comparable data from schools More recent data is available from the DFES regarding schools, both staffing and student profile. In January 2005, 9% of teachers were of BME heritage but for London the figure was 31%. Nationally the percentage of school students of BME heritage is 17%, and this has increased by one fifth since 1997. There are significant variances in the educational outcomes for different groups of school students. For example, pupils of Indian, Chinese or white Irish heritage outperform white pupils. The worst performing groups are Gypsy /Roma /traveller, and black Caribbean. 20

General population comparison data21

92% of the British population in the UK is white. The overall size of the minority ethnic population in the UK at the 2001 census was 7.9%. Of the non-white groups, the largest numbers are Indian and Pakistani, followed by mixed, black Caribbean and black Africans and Bangladeshis. 1% (691,000) of the population is white Irish. Of the non-white population, around half are Asian or Asian British, around a quarter black or black British, 15% mixed, 5% Chinese, 5% other. The total population is 4.6 million, 53% increased from the 1991 census when it was 3 million. Data from the 2001 census showed that 29% of the population of London was non-white.

19 Ethnicity and employment in Higher Education (1999) Policy Studies institute authors Tariq Madood and Steve Fenton . 20 DFES Research topics series, report into ethnicity in schools January 2005. 21 2001 census: www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001

Non-white people are significantly more likely to live in England. 9% of the population of England was non-white, against 2% in Scotland and Wales and less than 1% in Northern Ireland. The non- white population is overwhelmingly concentrated in urban areas, with 45% of the non-white population living in London, 13% in the West Midlands, and 8% in the North West and South East, and 7% in Yorkshire and Humberside. Only 4% of the non-white population lives in the North East or South West, and they comprise less than 2% of those populations. 22

The non-white population is older than the white, reflecting current immigration and fertility trends. All other things being equal. it could therefore be assumed that numbers of non-whites at University or HE institutions would be higher than the population averages. A recent Government report estimated that population of working age will increase by a million in the next ten years, and that more than half of that increase will come from minority ethnic communities23. Currently the ratio of the working population of ethnic minority heritage is 9%. Black and minority ethnic staff in Students’ Unions The snapshot survey conducted by the group, although not strictly speaking statistically accurate, suggests that for students working in Unions (Executive Officers, student staff,) participation in Unions broadly reflects the national picture (18% for executive officers, 30% for student staff, when compared against 25% (17.2% BME + 12% overseas students.)24

Given the small numbers it was not possible to conclude from the data whether participation in particular unions reflected the patterns of access noted in the sectors and described above. The recent growth in student numbers, which precipitated this more diverse student population began in the early 1990s, and is now reflected through a greater number of BME student staff and officers. However, the numbers of people of BME background within permanent Union staff is below the UK average population participation, and even more particularly at senior levels. The group conducted telephone interviews with a number of BME staff to obtain their insight and opinions. In the main the opinions of those individuals towards their employers was positive. “Some Unions have managers who are supportive and empowering”25

The lack of opportunities for career progression was noted but not, in the main, attributed to discrimination, but to other factors such as flat structures, the longevity in post of senior managers. In general there were positive comments about training and development.

“I have been given plenty of opportunity to advance at [the Union] including management“.

22 2001 Census 23 Encouraging Diversity in the Boardroom, DTI Women and equality Unit March 2004 24 Data, online snapshot survey conducted by DAWG; August and September 2005 25 All quotes are taken from insight interviews undertaken by Rak Mistry, for the group, between November 2005 and January 2006

“I do not think I have achieved my career potential because [ ]…, there are not enough senior positions [in the Union]. For the time being, my employment with [the Union] is serving its purpose.”

Since volunteer activity is a route through which many staff have gained the experience that they need to progress, respondents were asked about AMSU. By and large the BME respondents said that they had not heard of AMSU prior to their involvement in this project.

‘Do not have enough time for my job let alone help on a committee” “Not heard of it”

Respondents were asked what they thought Unions should do to improve their experiences as a BME staff member. The answers included, would like to see more BME staff, better support mechanisms in place, and education for other staff on cultural sensitivities.

“Recruit more BME’s.” “It would be great if people were aware of cultural sensitivities as well.” “Have more staff members from ethnic minorities in the first place and also broaden scope for progression.” “To have a support mechanism in place should employees feel that they are being targeted because of their race particularly in regions where there are very few minorities.” “ I’m not sure, I have never had any racist treatment…most people are intrigued about my mixed nationality.” “There is a lack of BME’s involved at a student level and also in the organisation itself from a staffing point of view. Role models who already work in the Union should be used to promote this to students, staff and the […]world at large, [……] If the more dominant Caucasian work force could take an interest and also put on events that connected with the BME’s at a student level or by employing people from these backgrounds would interest from such groups in the Union change. Also some staff act or say things in a manner that may be regarded by some cultures as being offensive and often such acts go unnoticed or unreported by BME’s as the fear reprisal and also if they are the only BME in the organisation they may think it is normal to act in this way” “Have more role models, those who have developed themselves in the Union and are at the pinnacle to their career in the sector, this would encourage and inspire others to do better.”

“Have opportunities for BME’s to network with each other and to formulate a support network where mentoring and advice can be offered, where it is needed. This would be useful where there is only 1 member of staff from a BME group”

Although the numbers interviewed were small (8) it may be worth noting that 50% of respondents had a first degree and a further 37.5% had a masters degree, and that they all had career ambitions. This supports other research which strongly suggests that BME people, like women, are better qualified than white people (and men) performing similar level jobs.

In summary, the key issues here appear to be: • Union profiles reflect the profile of society in general, and the sector in particular.

Black and minority ethnic people are not proportionately represented. • There appears to be great difficulty in recruiting BME staff, particularly to

permanent roles. • There may also be issues around progression. • The staff that are recruited generally felt that they had a good and supportive

experience. Women The pattern of women working has changed radically in the thirty years since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970. There are now 12.5 million women in work as opposed to 9.1 million, 66% of mothers work against 47% then, including 52% of mothers with pre-school children (25%.) The pay gap has reduced, looking at full time workers only the gap is 17.1% (29%, 1975) although when part-time workers are included it rises to 38.%, barely changed from 1975 (42%). 26

It remains the case that many job roles are tied to gender (occupational segregation). In the last thirty years, however there has been a dramatic rise in the number of women in managerial posts, in 1975, only 1.8% of managers were female, and in 1975 only 1.6% of directors were female.27 A recent report by the Chartered Management Institute (November 2005) found that the numbers of women in management had trebled in 10 years to 33.1 per cent, and that the number of female directors had increased to 14.4 %. Levels in the voluntary sector are higher at 50%. Women directors and managers earned less than their male counterparts – at director level earning £22,144 less per year (15%) and at manager level £3925 less (6%).28

Recent statistics on women in senior roles generally offer no room for complacency. 0.8 % of army officers are women, as are 8% of judges, 9% of newspaper editors, 15% of University VC’s, and 17% of TU General Secretaries.29 Within the political sphere, 29.1% of local councillors are female, 30 and 9% of CEO’s in Local Government31

Close to home, the picture for women in Universities is radically variant for the pre and post - 92 Universities. In the modern Universities, 42% of teaching staff are female, in the pre-92 Universities the figure is 27%. Women are concentrated in the “professional support” roles (admin).32

The snapshot survey found that women now make up over half the union workforce.33 However the equal numbers of women working in Unions is not reflected at senior level.

26 The Guardian, 14th January 2006 27 ibid 28 CMI newsletter, November 2005 29 Christine King, speech, VC of Staffordshire University, January 10th 2006 30 Public Journal, January 2006 31 Mairi Mclean CEO of Northampton Borough Council, speech, 10th January 2006 32 Christine King VC of Staffordshire University, speech, 10th January 2006. 33 DAWG on line survey August 2005

The proportion of women in the role of the union senior manager, from the survey is 30%. However, senior women are concentrated in smaller Unions. Using purchase value as a proxy for size of Union, analysis shows that within the top ten Unions, there is one woman in the top job (10%); top 40, five (12.5%); and top fifty, seven (14%). 34 There are signs of change, albeit slowly. In 2002, 15% of general managers in the 20 largest Unions were women, and 10% of the top 10, and overall, the figure was 24%. Amongst elected officers the figures are more encouraging – 44% of our elected officers are female. But for Unions with Presidents, the proportion of female Presidents drops to 36%35

The insight interviews conducted highlighted some key themes felt by women themselves to be relevant to their experiences.36 All the respondents were managers. One General Manager thought that generally students’ unions were quite good in terms of gender diversity even if it isn’t as embedded in our practices, as we would like to think. Key issues identified were: work-life balance (including the issue of who in the home undertook domestic responsibilities); and career progression (including role modelling and networking.) Work life balance The long hours, or late hours involved in working in students’ unions can be a barrier for women managers. There was some feeling that women managers also had responsibilities for many of the domestic or caring duties and that whilst partners took a share of responsibilities, they didn’t seem to have to sacrifice or juggle quite as much. ‘I come home exhausted with the emotional stress, the hours and then the housework’. One manager said that her biggest frustration was never having any food in her fridge! It was felt by some interviewees that women have to choose between a successful career or a successful relationship / home life. One women interviewed said that she felt that she had to be a superwoman. Flexible working was cited as essential for managers with children. One manager with a child thought that students’ unions are excellent at providing flexible working but paid lower salaries compared to similar jobs outside students’ unions. Many women with children said they were prepared to sacrifice the salary for the flexibility. However this seems to be relevant at lower levels because flexible working hours is more difficult in more senior roles due to the longer and later hours required. One senior manager said that by having to balance young children and her job, she didn’t have the time to network, go on external training opportunities or even socialise with the student officers and felt that she was really missing out. Career progression Respondents likened students’ unions to teaching, because there are many women employed at the lower end as teachers but most senior posts, like headteachers, are

34 NUS Services 35 Research by Lesley Dixon January 2006 36 Insight interviews with 10 female managers from the movement, conducted by Laura Hyde, on behalf of the group, between November and December 2005

held by men. Several of the women interviewed thought that women tended to be employed in the ‘softer’ areas such as administration, or advice. It was noted that some students’ unions are much more proactive at attracting and women across the range of roles. One students’ union uses anonymous application forms. This has led to an increase in the number of men being interviewed for welfare roles. Networking was seen to be important in terms of career progression, as was volunteering, with a number of women feeling that it was harder for them to become involved in either, or to become visible. It was thought that many women managers just keep their heads down and don’t come out to play nationally. One manager felt that there is an expectation to network and socialise in the bar and over alcohol which can put pressure on ones’ work life balance and physical well-being. Another female manager thought that students’ unions are ‘fantastic environments for support but [….] you have to seek it from people who you know and trust’. Volunteering is a key route to networking and progression, and there was a general feeling that NUS Services and AMSU should cast their nets wider when looking for volunteers. Nearly all the women interviewed felt that it is important to have women role models. One senior manager said ‘women don’t see the faces of other women at the front of conference or leading nationally’. One General Manager was shocked at her first national meeting: ‘oh my god it is all men!’ There was a feeling however that there were more female role models appearing more recently at national events or conferences ‘It felt that the ground had shifted at the last Change Management seminar’ and ‘thank god the women are there and there is inspiration from within’. One female manager felt that generally people who recruit General Managers are inexperienced at recruitment and that they recruit the person that matches their sub conscious image of a General Manager – ‘a white bloke’. In her experience, men are more likely than women to act like they have the right to be at the interview. “Discrimination is illegal but do not be fooled into thinking that it has gone” said Christine King – VC of Staffordshire University at a workshop in January. “Just look to see what shape it now takes”37. She quoted research showing that women do not apply for jobs until they meet 80% of the person specification, when men will apply when they meet 30%. In summary, for women the key issue seems to be:

• work life balance and career progression. Women themselves are looking at the long hours, and the perceived presenteeism culture, and deciding that the personal price of senior office is too high. They are opting out of applying for the big jobs, and choosing quality of life.

37 Christine King, ibid

Disability. Around 10 million people – one in five of the population - in Britain are disabled, including people with physical impairments, such as epilepsy, cancer, and mental impairment, such as bi-polar disease or schizophrenia.38

Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, legal rights and obligations affecting disabled people’s access to services, education and employment are already in force. Historically, disabled people have not had the means to access education or employment. So, for example, approximately four in ten (42 per cent) of all households with a disabled person have an income of £10,000 or less. Of the working age population, 45 per cent of disabled people are in employment compared to 82 per cent of non-disabled people. Five per cent of students in higher education report that they have a disability. Fifty-eight per cent of disabled people (with or without a long-term illness) have no qualifications compared to 24 per cent of non-disabled people. The snapshot survey identified 7 respondents (1%) with a disability. No distinction was made between hidden or visible disability. To supplement this, qualitative interviews were carried out with 7 people (not necessarily the same people.) The key issues covered were; recruitment and selection, experiences of discrimination, progression and volunteering39. All respondents said they had very good experiences of their recruitment process. Some recruitment processes included equality monitoring and asked about needs for accessible venue prior to arriving, but this was not consistent practice.

“I was able to visit the union before I started working for a look around for possible changes that would need to be made to make my office more accessible to me in my wheelchair. I was told about Access to Work for help with costs to get to and from work as I was unable to use public transport and did not drive when I first started. I felt very well supported”

The negatives mainly came from interaction with university premises and staff, rather than within union structures. “I expected the students’ union environment to be very accessible and equal opportunities orientated. With the exception of access to some facilities I have found that my experiences have matched up to my expectations”.

Respondents were asked if various staff groups and the officers in the union had treated them in different ways. This varied from person to person as might be expected with the unique personalities at play, but there was little variation in the ways the staff member was dealt with. What was interesting was that the perceived ‘softer’ side of the union (membership services) were more likely to look at alternative ways of dealing with issues to ensure the individual was supported appropriately.

“On the whole other members of staff have treated me equally and I have had no problems. Some of the older members of staff feel that they should help me because

38 Disability Rights Commission: Facts and Figures 2004 39 Insight interviews undertaken with 7 respondents by Andrea Pierce, for the group, between November 2005 and January 2006

I’m in my wheelchair but once I explain that I’m fine and that I can manage everything is usually ok”

Respondents were asked about their overall perception of the job… “do you like your work”, if they felt they received adequate training, and whether they anticipated staying in this area of work. All had come to the role with relevant professional and academic qualifications and experience. They had received some basic necessary training for their jobs, but as most had not been in post for any great length of time, there had not been significant investment in their vocational training as yet. One identified that he had just about settled in now, and would be looking at relevant courses soon to present to his line manager for approval. “I am happy in my current role and would like to continue with this role whilst I still find it enjoyable and rewarding.”

Since the majority of respondents had not been long in post, there was no awareness of any progression issues. Interestingly those who were women did comment that the hours needed to move up in the union movement may be restrictive especially if they had family commitments as well as their particular disability to contend with. One said that her boyfriend has complained when she has needed to work late in her current role.

“I believe that as much as we would like there to be no barriers at all there will always be some form of hidden barriers as it will be very difficult to make everything completely accessible to everyone” Given the volunteering does provide opportunities it was felt that NUS Services and AMSU volunteering opportunities are not publicised widely enough. The respondents were mainly not aware that there was anything they could contribute to these fora. ‘Do not have enough time for my job let alone help on a committee” The comments offered a taste of personal experiences within a few unions around the country. In summary they are mainly positive, with the greatest issues being around university/union interactions. “Continue to listen to disabled staff comments on improvements or adjustments that need to be made. To provide training for all managers/line managers on issues that may arise with disabled staff and how best to deal with them – don’t leave this up to the university training departments to do!” The numbers reporting as disabled were low. This may indicate that there are not many staff who have a disability employed, or are they not confident to inform their employers that they do have ‘hidden’ disabilities and are concerned that this could have implications to their future job security? One major area that no one identified was mental health, yet it is a very real issue in Universities and if disability statistics are anything to go by, we can assume there are staff with diagnosed mental ill health working within the movement. Another factor evident is that most of those interviewed were reasonably new employees (up to 18months employment to date). This may indicate a shift in employment practices, to a more positive approach to disability .

All respondents were educated to degree level and above, all having worked elsewhere. Most had been involved with Unions during their learning years. This shows that there is a huge potential for disabled staff to be part of the students’ union movement, and that maybe there is a need to better publicise what we do to potential future recruits. “It would be really great if disabled staff that have developed their careers within a Union were prepared to share their experiences with others. I know this would have inspired me to apply, and how about some mentoring too!” In summary, as with BME staff, staff with disabilities generally felt that they were well treated, but the numbers reporting as disabled via the snapshot survey are very low. This may indicated that few people with disabilities are applying and this is an area that could be addressed. Age From October 2006 it will become unlawful to discriminate in employment on the grounds of age. In 2002 there were 19.8million over 50 year olds in Britain, forecast to increase to 27 million by 2031.40

In the snapshot survey, 14 people, whether staff, student staff or executive officer, were over 50. Only one member of staff was over 60. All but one of the officers fell into the 21- 30 age bracket. The recent much publicised ‘pensions crisis’ and the publication of the Turner report have focused interest on the future of work in an ageing population. As a population we are living longer and healthier lives as a consequence of the absence of global conflict, improving health care, reductions in smoking and less hazardous working life. From this year, 2006, 45-59 year olds will form the largest group in the workforce. As in other sectors, the proportion of over 50 year old staff in higher education is increasing In the future older people may exert considerably more political power then they do now by sheer weight of numbers and active participation in elections. Clearly then this will be an area of developing interest to policy makers. Students’ unions will need to consider the implications of both an older/ageing workforce and membership when culturally we have largely seen ourselves as youthful organisations. The approach taken in respect of DDA implementation (that of reasonable adjustments) may be one model available to policy makers, early retirement may be an option not available to employers/ employees based on cost and in respect of older workers we may have to consider more flexible approaches to work life balance. There are examples in the private sector (B & Q) where a positive approach to employing older staff has been taken based on the practical knowledge of that group of staff gained over a lifetime of experience. No insight interviews were conducted with this group. Existing practice within Students’ Unions

40 Equality is challenging – New Age Thinking – published by the equality challenge unit, January 2006

Unions’ HR managers were also surveyed to enquire whether they measure and monitor recruitment practices. Many Unions do have the policies and processes in place which should ensure fairness in recruitment. In practice, however, Unions find that individuals from black and minority ethnic heritage do not apply for employment. A survey was issued to via the human resources data base to investigate the extent to which currently, employment practice is monitored. 14 replies were received. A number of these were followed up for more qualitative research. Respondents felt that their biggest challenge is that few people of non-white background apply to work within the union. A number of unions had attempted to address this via, for example, advertising in the Voice, but did not report a great deal of success. One union had found that although they had a percentage of BME staff which reflected the local population, none of those staff were managers. Most unions found that although monitoring and review took place, there was uncertainty about how to take effective action.

1. Appendix II Relevant legislation

• Equal Pay Act 1970 Gives an individual a right to the same contractual pay and benefits as a person of the opposite sex in the same employment, doing like work, work rated as equivalent under an analytical job evaluation study or work that is proved to be of equal value. • Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Prohibits sex discrimination against individuals in the areas of employment, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services and in the disposal or management of premises. Also prohibits discrimination in employment against married people, but it is not unlawful to discriminate against someone because they are not married. • Race Relations Act 1976 Prohibits discrimination on racial grounds – colour, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origins. Does not include culture and religion. • Disability Discrimination Act 1995 General duty not to discriminate against individuals with disabilities. • Protection from Harassment Act 1997 The main criminal legislation dealing with the offence of harassment. It can cover a wide range of conduct and behaviours, including racial or religious motivated harassment and could also be used to prosecute certain types of anti-social behaviour where these amount to 'harassment', such as playing loud music, barking dogs and noisy house repairs. • Human Rights Act 1998 Makes certain rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enforceable in United Kingdom courts. All our laws must now comply "as far as possible" with these rights. • Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 Previously it was unlawful for all public authorities to discriminate on racial grounds in relation to employment, education and housing practices, and in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Now it is unlawful for any public authority to discriminate on racial grounds when carrying out any of its functions. Signifies a shift away from cure to prevention by extending protection and places a new, enforceable positive duty on public authorities.

• Disability Discrimination Act Amendment Regulations Act 2003 Amendments to definition and constraints of DDA Part II to bring it in to line with wider equality legislation. • Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 The term ‘sexual orientation’ covers people with orientation towards:

• people of the same sex (lesbian and gay/homosexual) • people of the opposite sex (heterosexual) • people of both sexes (bisexual)

Offers protection from four unlawful actions due to actual or perceived sexual orientation:

• direct discrimination • indirect discrimination • harassment • victimisation

• Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 • Implement the principle of equal treatment in employment and training, irrespective of religion or belief. • EU Race Directive 2003 • Concerned with the principle of equal treatment between people, irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin. It sets minimum standards of protection, which all member states must meet. Member states cannot reduce the standards of protection they already provide. • Race Relations Act (1976) Amendment Regulations (2003) Introduced the first legal definition of harassment, making harassment on the grounds of race or ethnic or national origin a separate unlawful act. Harassment on the grounds of colour or nationality will continue to be treated as possible direct discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976. • • Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Amends the DDA by giving public bodies new duties. Racial and Religious Hatred Bill Will amend the Public Order Act 1986 to create offences and amend provisions involving stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds. Religious hatred is defined as hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of it.

Covers words, behaviours, materials, performances, recordings or programmes that are likely to be seen, heard or attended by those in whom it is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred. Disability Rights Bill (2006) Public sector duty to promote disability equality. The Equality Act 2006

was granted Royal Assent in February 2006 . The Act:

• makes provision for the establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to carry out the work of the existing commissions on gender race and disability and to prevent discrimination and promote equality in relation to age, sexual orientation and religion or belief

• prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the provision of goods, facilities and services, premises

• provides for regulation against discrimination or harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services

• creates a public sector duty to promote equality between men and women

Many thanks to Dan Sumner of King’s College London Students’ Union. Please note this list is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of law, but a signpost.

Appendix III List of useful resources www.amsu.net. The diversity action working group section includes specimen equal opportunities and recruitment and selection policies as supplied by ACAS diversity team. There is also a useful recruitment and selection monitoring tool developed by Nus services figures are published annually by HESA for each University and are available online from www.statistics.gov for each institution, and from census data for the area. HEEON (Higher Education Equal Opportunities Network) www.heeon.ac.uk Network for equal opportunities professionals working within the field of Higher Education Equality Challenge Unit A full-time office dedicated to promoting equal opportunities for all who work or seek to work in higher education. Their remit was extended to include students in February 2006. www.ecu.ac.uk –links to many useful resources www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001The website also contains many useful reports

Appendix IV Diversity Monitoring The AMSU Diversity Action Working Group are commencing diversity monitoring of staff and student officers within Students' Unions for the purposes of developing equal opportunity policies. Staff and student officers are being asked to complete a short survey in order to begin this monitoring. Completion of such information is entirely voluntary and will be used for the sole purpose of developing equal opportunties policies. We would appreciate it if you could spend the time to complete the following short questions. Union Details Union Name ____________________________________ Staff Are you a: Member of permanent staff

Member of student staff Executive Officer

Are you a Senior member of staff? Yes No Gender Are you: Male Female Age Which of the following age groups do you belong: Under 21 21-30

31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 Over 70

Ethnicity To which of the following ethnic groups do you belong:

White British Irish Any other white background

Please specify_____________________

Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Black Asian

Any other mixed background Please specify_____________________

Asian or Asian British

Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

Any other Asian background Please specify_____________________

Black or Black British Caribbean African

Any other black background Please specify_____________________

Chinese or other ethnic group

Chinese Any other ethnic background

Please specify_____________________ Disability Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Yes No If yes, please specify_________________________________

Thank you very much for completing your details. Please click the 'submit' button below to send your response.