Contents
- Introduction
- Our commitment
- Summary
- Collecting equality monitoring data
- Indicator 1
- Indicator 2
- Indicator 3
- Indicator 4a
- Indicator 4b
- Indicator 5
- Indicator 6
- Indicator 7
- Indicator 8
- Indicator 9a
- Indicator 9b
- Indicator 10
- Appendix A: Workforce Disability Equality Standard indicators
Introduction
Welcome to our 2024 Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES) report. The WDES has 10 specific indicators (Appendix A). They enable us to compare the experiences of disabled colleagues with colleagues that are not disabled, to enable us to develop how we ensure equitable outcomes.
Our commitment
We publish this report to be transparent and show our commitment to providing a fair and inclusive environment for our disabled colleagues.
Summary
Representation
A continued area of focus in our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy is improving representation in our executive and grades below. This is to enable us to represent the communities we serve and retain our internal talent:
- The overall representation of disabled colleagues in CQC has reduced from 13.9% in 2023 to 12.4% in 2024 (a decrease of 50 colleagues). Disabled colleagues are proportionately represented in grades with the most colleagues: Grades A, B, and C, but under-represented in the executive grades.
Recruitment
There is little difference in the relative likelihood of disabled candidates being appointed from shortlisting compared with candidates who are not disabled.
Inclusion
Activity to improve inclusion is a key focus in our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion strategy. It is also part of our response to the Listening, Learning, and Responding to Concerns review.
- Disabled respondents in our 2024 People Survey remain more likely than respondents who are not disabled to have experienced bullying, harassment, or abuse from other colleagues. However, the figure for disabled respondents has improved compared with 2023 (down by 0.8%).
- The majority of disabled respondents reported that they have received the reasonable adjustments they need (81%). This score is a significant improvement from 2023 (up 29%).
We have been working to improve our adjustments offer since our last report.
- The new joiners’ welcome email informs new colleagues about the resources available and how to request adjustments.
- The introduction of our Accessibility Hub and the post of Accessibility and Assistive Technology lead has changed the way we respond to colleagues who experience accessibility barriers.
- Our #HaveITYourWay campaign produced valuable insights, which helped to enhance home working experiences for our disabled colleagues by providing additional IT equipment.
Collecting equality monitoring data
We use data about our people to develop this report, which is taken from the Electronic Staff Record (ESR).
The following shows the total number of people employed in CQC and the proportion of colleagues who have shared that they are disabled through ESR.
| Total number of colleagues at 31 March 2024 | 3,029 |
|---|---|
| Proportion of disabled colleagues employed | 12.4% |
| Proportion of all colleagues who have shared their disability status | 94.4% |
- The total number of colleagues employed as at 31 March 2024 has reduced by 45.
- The total number of disabled colleagues has also decreased by 50, from 427 in 2023 to 377 in 2024.
- This has resulted in a decrease to the overall representation figure from 13.9% in 2023 to 12.4%.
In this report, we also use data from our 2024 People Survey and comparison data from our 2023 Pulse Survey.
| Respondents | January/February People Survey 2024 - count | January/February People Survey 2024 - % of total | May Pulse Survey 2023 - count | May Pulse Survey 2023 - % of total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 530 | 23.3% | 483 | 22.8% |
| Not disabled | 1,545 | 67.8% | 1,446 | 68.3% |
| Prefer not to say | 203 | 8.9% | 187 | 8.8% |
| Total | 2,278 | 100% | 2,116 | 100% |
Indicator 1
Indicator 1 requires that we report the percentage of disabled colleagues in each of the Agenda for Change (AfC) Bands and Very Senior Managers (VSM), which include executive Board members, compared with the percentage of colleagues in the overall workforce.
Our pay and grading framework is not always directly comparable with the Agenda for Change (AfC) bands from the NHS. However, for the purpose of comparison, broad equivalents between the two are provided in the following table (also see Appendix A).
| Category | Not disabled 2023/24 | vs 2022/23 | Disabled 2023/24 | vs 2022/23 | Not stated 2023/24 | vs 2022/23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 4 (Executive Grades) | 82.8% | 1.1% | 9.4% | -2.8% | 7.8% | 1.7% |
| Cluster 3 (Grades A, B) | 82.4% | 1.7% | 12.5% | -1.9% | 5% | 0.2% |
| Cluster 2 (Grades C, D, E) | 80.9% | -0.2% | 12.5% | -1.7% | 6.6% | 2% |
| Cluster 1 (Grade F) | 77.9% | -4.5% | 15.6% | 4.9% | 6.5% | -0.5% |
| Overall total | 81.9% | 0.9% | 12.5% | -1.5% | 5.6% | 0.6% |
Data at 31 March 2024. Comparison is with data from 31 March 2023.
What our data is telling us:
Data on representation of disabled colleagues is reported in clusters (groups of grades):
- Representation in cluster 3 (Grades A, B) and cluster 2 (Grades C, D, E) is proportionate to the overall figure (12.5%).
- Cluster 1 (Grade F) is over-represented (15.6%), while cluster 4 (executive grades) is the only area that is under-represented (9.4%).
- Compared with 2023, representation is lower in all clusters except cluster 1 (Grade F), which saw an increase of 4.9%. It’s important to note that structural changes have increased the total headcount in Grades C and D (cluster 2) and reduced the total headcount in Grade F (cluster 1). Cluster 4 (executive grades) saw the largest decrease, down by 2.8% to 9.4%.
- When reviewing the data by individual grade, disabled colleagues are proportionately represented in the grades with the most colleagues: Grades A, B, C (12.5% to 12.8% respectively). There is slight over-representation in Grades F (15.6%) and D (13.9%), and under-representation in executive grades (9.4%) and Grade E (10.9%).
- Compared with 2023, there have been increases in 2 of the 8 Grades: Grade F (up 4.9%) and Grade C (up 1.3%). Decreases were in Grade E (down 3.9%), Grade D (down 2.9%), and executive grades (down 2.8%).
Indicator 2
Indicator 2 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of candidates who are not disabled being appointed from shortlisting across all posts compared with disabled candidates.
- A relative likelihood of 1 indicates that there is no difference. For example, applicants that are not disabled are equally as likely of being appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
- A relative likelihood above 1 indicates applicants that are not disabled are more likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared to disabled applicants. For example, a likelihood ratio of 2 indicates applicants that are not disabled are twice (2 times) as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
- A relative likelihood below 1 indicates applicants that are not disabled are less likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared to disabled applicants. For example, a likelihood ratio of 0.5 indicates applicants that are not disabled are half (0.5 times) as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
| Category | Not disabled 2023/2024 | Disabled 2023/2024 | Not disabled 2022/2023 | Disabled 2022/2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number shortlisted | 2,133 | 418 | 2,331 | 429 |
| Number appointed | 546 | 95 | 726 | 132 |
| Relative likelihood of shortlisting/ appointed | 0.256 | 0.227 | 0.311 | 0.308 |
Relative likelihood of candidates that are not disabled being appointed from shortlisting across all posts compared with disabled candidates:
- 2023/2024*: 1.13
- 2022/2023*: 1.01
*2024 data covers period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. 2023 data covers period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.
What our data is telling us:
- There is little difference in the relative likelihood of disabled candidates being appointed from shortlisting compared with candidates who are not disabled.
- From the applications that were shortlisted in 2024:
- 78% of candidates were not disabled (down by 2 percentage points)
- 15% were disabled candidates (the same as the previous year)
- 7% did not share this information (up by 2 percentage points).
- From the candidates who were appointed in 2024:
- 80% were not disabled (down by 1 percentage point)
- 14% were disabled (down by 1 percentage point)
- 6% did not share this information (up by 2 percentage points).
Indicator 3
Indicator 3 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of disabled colleagues entering the formal capability process (on the grounds of performance, not ill-health) compared with colleagues who are not disabled. This indicator is based on a 2-year rolling average.
| Category | Not disabled 2023/2024 | Disabled 2023/2024 | Not disabled 2022/2023* | Disabled 2022/2023* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of colleagues in workforce (average) | 2,482 | 402 | 2,547 | 351 |
| Number of colleagues entering the formal capability process | 1.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Likelihood entering the formal capability process | 0.0006 | 0 | 0.0008 | 0 |
Relative likelihood of disabled colleagues entering the process compared with non-disabled colleagues:
- 2023/2024: 0
- 2022/2023*: 0
*Data is based on a 2-year rolling average of the reporting year (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024) and the previous year (1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023).
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled colleagues are less likely to be subject to formal capability process than colleagues that are not disabled.
- There were no cases of this happening, which was the same as 2023.
- The number of cases of colleagues who were not disables increased from 1 to 2.
Indicator 4a
Indicator 4a concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues who reported experiencing bullying harassment or abuse in the last 12 months compared with colleagues who are not disabled.
This includes bullying, harassment or abuse from:
- patients, relatives, or the public
- managers
- other colleagues.
This indicator is measured by 2 separate questions asked in our People surveys, and we combine ‘managers’ and ‘other colleagues’. We used data from our 2024 People Survey and compared with data from our 2023 Pulse Survey.
Question text: "In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues (for example, the public)"
| Disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Not disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Difference (between disabled and not disabled 2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14.2% | -1.7% | 8.3% | -1.7% | 5.9% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents remain more likely than respondents who are not disabled to have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse from people other than colleagues (14.2% and 8.3% respectively).
- Minor improvements are seen for both groups compared with the 2023 Pulse Survey data.
Question text: "In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment, or abuse from other CQC colleagues"
| Disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Not disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Difference (between disabled and not disabled 2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18.7% | -0.8% | 8.7% | -4.1% | 10% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents remain more likely than respondents who are not disabled to have experienced bullying, harassment, or abuse from colleagues.
- Improvement is seen for both groups compared with 2023. The score for disabled respondents was down 0.8%, while there was a larger decrease of 4.1% for respondents who are not disabled.
Indicator 4b
Indicator 4b concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues saying they reported the last time they experienced bullying, harassment or abuse at work, from people other than CQC colleagues, compared with colleagues who are not disabled.
This is measured by 2 separate questions asked in our People surveys. We used data from our 2024 People Survey and compared with data from our 2023 Pulse Survey.
Question text: "Have you reported the bullying/harassment?"
[In response to "In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues. For example, members of the public and people who use services"]
| Disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Not disabled 2024 | vs 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 57.4% | +9.3% | 57.1% | +9.2% |
What our data is telling us:
- There is no difference in reporting rates between disabled respondents and respondents who are not disabled.
- Scores for both groups have improved at the same rate (up by 9 percentage points).
Question text: "Have you reported the bullying/harassment?"
[In response to "In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse from other CQC colleagues"]
| Disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Not disabled 2024 | vs 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 51.5% | +24.2% | 45.2% | +6.8 |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are slightly more likely to report bullying, harassment or abuse from colleagues compared with respondents who are not disabled.
- The score for respondents who are not disabled has increased slightly, while the score for disabled respondents has increased by 24.2% since 2023.
Indicator 5
Indicator 5 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues who believe that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion, compared with colleagues who are not disabled.
We used data from our 2024 People Survey and compared with data from our 2023 Pulse Survey.
Question text: "I believe our organisation provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion"
| Disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Not disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Difference (between disabled and not disabled 2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35.5% | +9.6% | 46.9% | +6.7% | -11.5% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are less likely to agree with this statement than respondents who are not disabled.
- Respondents who are not disabled were more positive about this statement (47%). A large gap remains between the 2 groups, although this has reduced in 2024.
- Compared with 2023, the score for disabled respondents has improved more than the score for respondents who are not disabled.
Indicator 6
Indicator 6 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues who have reported that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties, compared with colleagues who are not disabled. We used data from our 2024 People Survey and compared with data from our 2023 Pulse Survey.
This survey question was visible to those respondents who answered, ‘yes’ or ‘prefer not say’ to “Do you consider yourself to have a disability/long-term health condition?”.
Question text: "Have you felt pressure from your manager to come to work?"
[If 'yes' to: "In the last 3 months have you ever come to work despite not feeling well enough to perform your duties?"]
| Disabled 2024 | vs 2023 |
|---|---|
| 11.2% | -3.6% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are less likely to have felt pressure to work when unwell compared with 2023.
- 69% of disabled respondents reported working [in the last 3 months] despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties. Of this group, 11% (55 respondents) said that they felt pressure from their manager.
- This result has improved on 2023, when 15% (70 respondents) felt pressure to work by their manager.
Indicator 7
Indicator 7 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues reporting that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work compared with colleagues who are not disabled.
We used data from our 2024 People Survey and compared with data from our 2023 Pulse Survey.
Question text: "I feel valued for the work I do"
| Disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Not disabled 2024 | vs 2023 | Difference (between disabled and not disabled) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44% | +1.6% | 52.6% | -2.1% | -8.7% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are less likely to agree with this statement than respondents who are not disabled.
- There has been a small improvement in the result for disabled respondents in 2024. Although there is still a gap between disabled respondents and respondents who are not disabled, the gap has reduced to 9% in 2024.
Indicator 8
Indicator 8 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues saying that their employer has made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.
We used data from our 2024 People Survey and compared with data from our 2023 Pulse Survey.
Question Text: "Have appropriate reasonable adjustments been made to enable you to carry out your work?"
| Disabled 2024 | vs 2023 |
|---|---|
| 81% | +28.7% |
The wording of our question is slightly different to the NHS.
What our data is telling us:
- The majority of disabled respondents reported that they have received the reasonable adjustments they need (81%).
- This score represents a significant improvement since 2023 (up 29%).
Indicator 9a
Indicator 9a requires that we measures the staff engagement score for disabled colleagues, compared with colleagues who are not disabled.
Our engagement index is calculated using 4 specific survey questions, indicating how colleagues think and feel, how this affects their behaviour, and their desire to recommend or stay working at CQC. Our current approach is to include these questions only in our biennial People Survey (although some are included individually in our Pulse Surveys).
In 2024, the engagement score for disabled respondents was 50%. This compares with 56% for respondents who were not disabled.
Indicator 9b
Indicator 9b measures whether we have taken action to facilitate the voices of disabled colleagues in our organisation, so they are heard. We should provide one practical example of action taken in the last 12 months to engage with disabled colleagues.
Example 1: We have a fully supported and embedded Disability Equality Network (DEN), which we work with on a wide range of decisions and as part of our Equality Impact Assessment process. For example, refreshing our Workplace Adjustments policy, and creating a new Workplace Adjustments library and Workplace Passport to record adjustments.
Example 2: The DEN Chair(s) attend the People and Culture Committee and the CQC Board to provide updates on their work, discuss any barriers they are facing and support us with removing bias in our decision making at senior levels.
Example 3: We engaged with DEN to produce our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion strategy, ensuring the views of network members informed our long-term priorities and objectives.
Indicator 10
Indicator 10 requires that we report the percentage difference between the Board's members and the overall workforce, broken down by non-executive and executive members of the Board.
| Category | Not disabled | Disabled | Not stated |
|---|---|---|---|
| (i) Non-executive membership | 50% | 12.5% | 37.5% |
| (ii) Executive membership | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Board membership | 71.4% | 7.1% | 21.4% |
| Overall workforce | 78.6% | 14.1% | 7.2% |
Data as at September 2024
What our data is telling us:
- 12.5% of non-executive members identify as disabled and 37.5% have not stated.
- Executive representation for disabled individuals remains at 0%.
- Disabled Board representation (7.1%) is lower than the overall workforce representation (14.1%).
Appendix A: Workforce Disability Equality Standard indicators
The indicators from this report are developed by the NHS.
Workforce indicators
For each of these 4 workforce indicators, compare the data for disabled staff and staff that are not disabled.
1. Percentage of staff in Agenda for Change (AfC) pay-bands or medical and dental subgroups and very senior managers (including Executive Board members) compared with the percentage of staff in the overall workforce.
CQC should undertake this calculation separately for non-clinical and clinical staff in clusters 1 to 4.
Cluster 1: AfC Bands under 1, 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Cluster 2: AfC Bands 5, 6 and 7.
Cluster 3: AfC Bands 8a and 8b.
Cluster 4: AfC Bands 8c, 8d, 9 and VSM.
Cluster 5: Medical and Dental staff, consultants.
Cluster 6: Medical and Dental staff, non-consultant career grades.
Cluster 7: Medical and Dental staff, trainee grades.
2. Relative likelihood of staff that are not disabled compared to disabled staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts.
3. Relative likelihood of disabled staff compared to staff that are not disabled entering the formal capability process on the grounds of performance, as measured by entry into the formal capability procedure.
People/Pulse Survey indicators
For each of the 4 staff survey indicators, compare the outcomes of the responses for disabled staff and staff that are not disabled.
4. Percentage of disabled staff compared to staff that are not disabled experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from:
- patients/people who use services, their relatives, or other members of the public
- managers
- other colleagues.
5. Percentage of disabled staff compared to staff that are not disabled believing that the CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.
6. Percentage of disabled staff compared to staff that are not disabled saying that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties.
7. Percentage of disabled staff compared to staff that are not disabled saying that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work.
8. Percentage of disabled staff saying that their employer has made reasonable adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.
9a. The staff engagement score for disabled staff, compared to staff that are not disabled.
9b. Has the CQC taken action to facilitate the voices of disabled staff in your organisation to be heard (Yes or No)?
If yes, please provide at least one practical example of current action being taken in the relevant section of your WDES annual report.
If no, please include what action is planned to address this gap in your WDES annual report.
Board representation
For this indicator, compare the difference for disabled staff and staff that are not disabled.
- Percentage difference between CQC’s Board voting membership and its organisation’s overall workforce, disaggregated:
- by voting and non-voting membership of the Board
- by executive and non-exec membership of the Board.