Corporate report

Acas equality information report 2020 to 2021

Published

About this report

The Equality Act 2010 requires relevant public bodies, including Acas, to publish information to show how they comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty that ties in with the equality objectives we publish at least every 4 years. To enable us to understand, produce, measure and ultimately achieve our objectives it is necessary to produce an equality information report.

Although the Equality Act has 9 protected characteristics, for the purpose of measure and confidentiality, it is necessary at this time to limit our focus on age, disability, ethnicity and sexual orientation. It is also important that we only measure data where there could reasonably be a clear plan that can make use of the data being collected, against the likelihood of promoting equality between the protected characteristics.

The report covers the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.

1. Our staff

The equality and diversity figures in this report are based on a headcount total of 1,058 members of staff on 31 March 2021 and are taken from Acas's iTrent HR software system, unless otherwise stated. Staff on loan and not paid directly by Acas are not included in the analysis, neither are agency staff or contractors.

Declaration

Table 1 below shows the overall declaration rates for each reported characteristic as of 31 March 2021. We have 100% response rates for age and gender as this is collected early in the employment of staff.

Characteristic Age Disability Ethnicity Gender Sexual orientation
Employee numbers 1,058 635 921 1,058 910
Proportion % 100% 60% 87% 100% 86%

Age

Table 2 shows the age distribution of Acas employees.

The composition of staff by age in Acas shows the lowest number of 22 (2.1%) between the ages of 16 and 24, rising steadily between the ages of 25 and 64. The figures show that those between the ages of 25 and 64 make up the biggest proportion of our workforce at 93.7% in comparison with the wider Civil Service with very similar age categories of 20 and 64 at 97.4%.

Age categories Numbers in Acas Proportions in Acas Proportions in the Civil Service
16 to 19 1 0.1% 0.3%
20 to 29 101 9.5% 14.7%
30 to 39 225 21.3% 21.1%
40 to 49 262 24.8% 23.7%
50 to 59 328 31% 30.3%
60 to 64 96 9.1% 7.6%
65+ 45 4.3% 2.3%
Total 1058 100% 100%

Disability disclosure

Table 3 shows the disability declaration in Acas.

The number of staff who have declared a disability is 171 (16%). The number of staff who have stated that they do not have a disability is 395 (37%). 72 (7%) staff have stated that they prefer not to disclose, and 420 (40%) have not responded and therefore this data is unknown.

Unlike the wider Civil Service, we do not break down the figures into the type of disability (learning, mental or physical) as the numbers would make the figures unreportable. We can however compare the proportion of staff who have declared a disability in the Civil Service by grade in a later table.

Disability No disability Prefer not to say Unknown
Number of staff % Number of staff % Number of staff % Number of staff %
171 16% 395 37% 72 7% 420 40%

Ethnicity disclosure

Table 4 shows the ethnicity disclosure of the staff in Acas.

The data shows that during the reporting period of 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, 115 members of staff declared that they were Asian, black or belonging to another ethnic minority group. The proportion or percentage of this group makes up 11% of staff in Acas compared to the wider Civil Service of 10.7%. The data also shows that during that period, 5% of Acas staff preferred not to disclose, compared to 4.6% in the wider Civil Service.

The data in table 4 also shows the numbers and proportions of staff who declared themselves as white. This figure is 71%. In comparison, the percentage of staff in the wider Civil Service who declare themselves as white is 70.2%.

The data also shows that we have a number of staff who have not declared and therefore their ethnicity is unknown. The number of staff during this period who have not declared is 134 (13%).

The Civil Service declarations of Asian, black, Chinese, mixed and other 10.7%, white 70.2%, prefer not to say 4.6% and unknown 14.5%.

Ethnicity disclosure Proportions of staff in Acas Proportions of staff in Civil Service
Asian, black and other ethnic minority staff 115 (11%) 10.7%
Prefer not to say 57 (5%) 4.6%
White 752 (71%) 70.2%
Unknown 134 (13%) 14.5%

Gender disclosure

Table 5 shows the gender composition of Acas staff.

In Acas there is 100% disclosure and during this reporting period we have 623 staff that have declared being female, which is 58% of the organisation. Comparing this to the wider Civil Service the percentage of staff that have declared as female is 53.8%.

Staff that have disclosed themselves as male during this period is 435 (41.1%), compared to 46.2% in the wider Civil Service.

Gender 100% Proportions of staff in Acas Proportions of staff in Civil Service
Female 623 (58.8%) 53.8%
Male 435 (41.1%) 46.2%

Sexual orientation disclosure

Table 6 shows the sexual orientation composition of staff across Acas.

The data shows that 747 members of staff have declared themselves as heterosexual, 71% of the organisation.

During this period 52 members of staff (5%) declared themselves as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Other (LGBO).

116 members of staff (11%) have chosen not to declare their sexual orientation.

The data also shows that 143 (14%) members of staff have not responded and therefore their status is unknown.

Staff declaration Proportions of staff in Acas
Heterosexual 747 (71%)
LGBO 52 (5%)
Prefer not to say 116 (11%)
Unknown 143 (14%)

2. Diversity data by grade

The data presented here shows Acas' workforce by grade as proportions in relation to the protected characteristics and working patterns as at 31 March 2021.

There are various pay grades within Acas that are shown in the table below with the Civil Service equivalent grade.

Table 7 shows the grade structure in Acas compared to the Civil Service grade structure.

Acas grades Civil Service grades
Grade 12 Administrative assistant (AA)
Grade 11 Administrative Officer (AO)
Grade 10 Executive officer (EO)
Grade 9 Higher Executive Officer (HEO)
Grade 8 Senior Executive Officer (SEO)
Grade 7 Grade 7
Grade 6 Grade 6
Senior Civil Service (SCS) SCS

Gender grade distribution

Table 8 shows the grade structure in Acas according to gender.

The data shows that we have a total of 51 staff during this reporting period at grades 12 and 11. Declaration shows that 40 members of staff in these grades have declared themselves as female (78%). 11 (22%) of staff in this grade have declared themselves as male.

Grade 10 shows a total of 353 members of staff in the grade, 213 (60%) declared as female and 140 (40%) have declared themselves as male.

Grade 9 and 8 data shows that we had 591 staff in the grades during 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. 339 (57%) of staff have declared themselves as female and 252 (43%) have declared as male.

Grade 7 and 6 data shows that we had 57 members of staff in these grades during the reporting periods. 30 (53%) declared themselves as female and 27 (47%) declared themselves as male.

SCS data shows that we had 6 members of staff in this grade in the reporting period. 1 (17%) declared as female and 5 (83%) as male.

Table 8: Grade by gender distribution

Grade Total staff in grade Female staff in grade Proportion of female staff grade Male staff in grade Proportion of male staff in grade
12 and 11 51 40 78% 11 22%
10 353 213 60% 140 40%
9 and 8 591 339 57% 252 43%
7 and 6 57 30 53% 27 47%
SCS 6 1 17% 5 83%
Total 1,058 623   435  

Ethnicity grade distribution

Table 9 shows grade distribution by ethnicity.

During the year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, the data shows grades 12 and 11 were occupied by 9.8% of staff from Asian, black and other ethnic minority groups. 66.7% of staff declared themselves as white. 1.9% of the grade recorded that they preferred not to disclose and 21.6% of staff did not respond so therefore the ethnicity is unknown.

For grade 10 the data shows that 10.5% of the grade declared that they were Asian, black or another ethnic minority group. 62.6% of staff declared that they were white, 3.7% of staff recorded that they preferred not to disclose and 23.2% of staff did not respond so therefore ethnicity is unknown.

Grade 9 and 8 data shows that the proportion of staff that have declared themselves as Asian, black or another ethnic minority group is 11.7%. 74.8% have declared that they are white. 6.9% have recorded that they prefer not to disclose and 6.6% have not responded so therefore ethnicity is unknown.

Grade 7 and 6 data shows that 11.7% of staff have declared themselves as Asian, black or another ethnic minority group. 86% have declared themselves as white. 3.5% of staff have recorded that they prefer not to say and 3.5% have not responded therefore ethnicity is unknown.

SCS data shows that there is 0% Asian, black or other ethnic minority staff. 100% of staff have declared as white and 0% have recorded that they either prefer not to record or have not responded.

Table 9: Grade by ethnicity distribution

Grade Proportion of Asian, black and minority ethnic staff by grade Proportion of white staff by grade Proportion of staff recorded prefer not to say Proportion of staff not responded
12 and 11 9.8% 66.7% 1.9% 21.6%
10 10.5% 62.6% 3.7% 23.2%
9 and 8 11.7% 74.8% 6.9% 6.6%
7 and 6 7% 86% 3.5% 3.5%
SCS 0% 100% 0% 0%

Disability grade distribution

Table 10 shows the grade distribution by disability.

The data for 1 April 2020 shows that in grade 12 and 11 we have 7.8% of staff that have declared themselves as disabled and 35.2% of staff have recorded themselves as not disabled. 7.8% of staff have recorded that they would prefer not to disclose and 49% of staff have not responded so therefore the disability status is unknown.

The data for grade 10 staff shows that 17.5% of staff have declared themselves as disabled and 35.9% have declared they do not have a disability. 4.8% of staff have recorded that they prefer not to disclose and 41.6% of staff have not responded so therefore the disability status is unknown.

The data for grade 9 and 8 staff shows that 15.7% of staff have declared themselves as disabled and 35.8% of staff have declared themselves not to have a disability. 8.4% of staff have recorded that they prefer not to disclose and 39.9% of staff have not responded so therefore disability status is unknown.

The data for grade 7 and 6 staff shows that 21% of staff have declared a disability and 56.1% if staff have declared not to have a disability. 1.7% of staff have recorded that they prefer not to disclose a disability and 21% of staff have not responded so therefore disability status is unknown.

The data for SCS shows that 0% have declared a disability. 100% have declared not to have a disability. 0% have either reported that they prefer not to respond or not responded at all.

Table 10: Grade by disability distribution

Grade Proportion of disabled staff Proportion of staff that are not disabled Proportion of staff that prefer not to say Proportion of staff that have not responded therefore unknown
12 and 11 7.8% 35.2% 7.8% 49%
10 17.5% 35.9% 4.8% 41.6%
9 and 8 15.7% 35.8% 8.4% 39.9%
7 and 6 21% 56.1% 1.7% 21%
SCS 0% 100% 0% 0%

Sexual orientation grade distribution

Table 11 shows grade by sexual orientation distribution.

Because of numbers and for reasons of confidentiality data for sexual orientation in some areas cannot be reported on this occasion.

The data for this reporting period shows that in grades 12 and 11, 60.7% of staff have recorded to be heterosexual, 5.8% LGBO. 9.8% have recorded that they prefer not to say and 23.5% have not responded so the data is therefore unknown.

For grade 10 the data shows 62.6% recorded as heterosexual and 6.2% as LGBO. 6.2% have recorded that they prefer not to disclose and 25% have not responded.

The data for grade 9 and 8 shows that 74.6% of staff have recorded to be heterosexual, and 4.4% to be LGBO. 14% have recorded that they prefer not to disclose and 7% have not responded.

Table 11: Grade by sexual orientation distribution

Grade Heterosexual LGBO Prefer not to say Unknown
12 and 11 60.7% 5.8% 9.8% 23.5%
10 62.6% 6.2% 6.2% 25%
9 and 8 74.6% 4.4% 14% 7%

3. Recruitment

The data in table 12 below shows the numbers and percentages of applicants at different stages of the recruitment process between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021. All aspects of the recruitment process are reported in relation to each of the following characteristics: age, disability, ethnicity and gender.

In 2020 to 2021 there were a total of 1,209 applicants for Acas vacancies, 20 across government, 1,152 External and 37 internal. 162 candidates shifted to interview and 66 were successful at interview.

Total applications by age across all candidate sources

Table 12 (1) shows that the largest age group was the 31 to 40 age categories with applications at 449. Age categories 60 to 65 and 65+ received the least applications.

Table 12 (1): Total applications by age

Age band Count %
16 to 21 63 5.2%
22 to 30 345 29%
31 to 40 449 37.7%
41 to 50 193 16.2%
51 to 59 115 9.6%
60 to 65 14 1.1%
65+ 10 0.8%
Preferred not to say 20 1.6%

Sift success by age across all candidate sources

Table 12 (2) shows the age category 16 to 21. The data shows that 4 (11.8%) were successful at the sift stage with 34 (88.2%) being unsuccessful. This category was the second largest unsuccessful age category.

Age category 22 to 30 shows 31 (23%) success rate at sift stage and 104 (77%) unsuccessful. This category was the third largest unsuccessful age category.

Age 31 to 40 shows 72 (41.4%) success rate at sift stage and 102 (58.6%) unsuccessful. This category was the fourth largest unsuccessful age category.

Age 41 to 50 shows 37 (57.8%) success rate at sift stage and 27 (42.2%) unsuccessful. This category was the seventh largest unsuccessful age category.

Age 51 to 59 shows 17 (48.6%) success rate at sift stage and 18 (51.4%) unsuccessful. This category was the fifth largest unsuccessful age category.

Age 60 to 65 shows 1 (50%) success rate at sift stage and 1 (50%) unsuccessful. This category was the sixth largest unsuccessful age category.

Age 65+ shows 0 (0%) success rate at sift stage and 10 (100%) unsuccessful. This category was the largest unsuccessful age category at sift stage.

Table 12 (2): Sift success by age

Age band Count %
16 to 21 4 2.4%
22 to 30 31 19.1%
31 to 40 72 44.4%
41 to 50 37 22.8%
51 to 59 17 10.4%
60 to 65 1 0.6%
65+ 0 0%

Interview success by age across all candidate sources

Table 12 (3) shows for the age category 16 to 21 that data shows that 1 (50%) of those interviewed were successful and 1 (50%) unsuccessful. Although 4 passed the sift, only 2 went on to be interviewed. This age category is the second largest unsuccessful group.

For 22 to30 age category, 10 (71.4%) candidates were successful at interview and 4 (28.6%) were unsuccessful. Although 31 passed the sift, 14 went on to be interviewed. This age category is the fourth largest unsuccessful group.

The 31 to 40 age category shows 35 (76.1%) candidates were successful at interview and 11 (23.9%) were unsuccessful at interview stage. Although 72 candidates passed the sift, 46 went on to be interviewed. This age category is the fifth largest unsuccessful age group.

The 41 to 50 age category shows 14 (66.7%) candidates were successful at interview and 7 (33.3%) were unsuccessful at interview stage. Although 37 candidates passed the sift, 21 went on to be interviewed. This age category is the joint third largest unsuccessful age group.

The 51 to 59 age category shows 6 (66.7%) candidates were successful at interview and 3 (33.3%) were unsuccessful. Although 35 passed the sift, 9 candidates went on to be interviewed. This age category is the joint third largest unsuccessful age group.

The 60 to 65 and 65+ age categories show none of the candidates went on to be interviewed, although 1 candidate (age 60-65) passed the sift and therefore were the joint first largest unsuccessful age group.

Table 12 (3): Interview success by age

Age band Count %
16 to 21 1 1.5%
22 to 30 10 15.1%
31 to 40 35 53%
41 to 50 14 21.2%
51 to 59 6 9%
60 to 65 0 0%
65+ 0 0%

Total applications by disability

Table 13 (1) shows for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 out of the 1,209 applications received, 118 candidates declared to have a disability, 1,034 declared not to have a disability and 57 preferred not to disclose.

Table 13 (1): Applications by disability

Disability Count %
Disabled 118 9.7%
Not disabled 1,034 85.5%
Prefer not to say 57 4.7%

Total sift success by disability

Table 13 (2) shows the total successful sift data. It shows that 23 (40.4% of all candidates who declared a disability), 136 (35.9% of candidates who declared not to have a disability) and 3 (16.7% of those who preferred not to disclose) were successful during the sift.

Those candidates that were unsuccessful at sift stage were made up of 34 (59.6% of candidates who declared a disability), 243 (64.1% of candidates declared that they did not have a disability) and 15 (83.3% of candidates who preferred not to disclose).

Table 13 (2): Sift success by disability

Disability Count %
Disabled 23 40.4%
Not disabled 136 35.9%
Prefer not to say 3 16.7%

Interview success by disability

Table 13 (3) shows the overall success rate of candidates that declared a disability was 7.6% (9). Candidates that declared no disability was 5.4% (55) and candidates that preferred not to disclose was 3.6% (2).

At the interview stage the data shows that of the candidates that declared a disability, 9 (64.3% of those interviewed) were successful, 5 (35.7%) were unsuccessful. For candidates that declared no disability the data shows 55 (72.4% of those interviewed) were successful, 21 (27.6%of those interviewed) were unsuccessful. For candidates that preferred not to declare there were 2 successful candidates (100% of those that went to interview).

At interview, 5 (35.7% of those interviewed) of the candidates that declared a disability were unsuccessful. 21 (27.6%) of those who declared no disability and 0 of those who preferred not to declare were unsuccessful.

Table 13 (3): Interview success by disability

Disability Count %
Disabled 9 13.6%
Not disabled 55 83.3%
Prefer not to say 2 3%

Total applications by ethnicity

Table 14 (1) shows that applications received from candidates, across all candidate sources, were 279 (5.3%) of all applications from Asian, black and other ethnic minority groups, 717 (59.3%) of all applications from white ethnicity groups and 213 (17.6%) from unknown ethnicity groups.

Table 14 (1): Applications by ethnicity

Ethnicity Count %
Asian, black and other ethnic minority 279 23%
White 717 59%
Unknown 213 18%

Total sift success by ethnicity

Table 14 (2) shows that 31 candidates from Asian, black and other ethnic minority groups (22.8%) were successful and 105 (77.2%) unsuccessful at sift stage.

The data shows that 104 (46%) white candidates were successful and 122 (54%) were unsuccessful at sift stage.

The data shows that those who did not declare 27 (29.3%) were successful and 65 (70.7%) were unsuccessful at sift stage.

Table 14 (2): Sift success by ethnicity

Ethnicity Count %
Asian, black and other ethnic minority 31 19%
White 104 64.1%
Unknown 27 16.6%

Total interview success by Ethnicity

Table 14 (3) shows that those from Asian, black and other ethnic minority groups, 14 (66.7% of total group) were successful and 7 (33.3% of total group) were unsuccessful at interview stage.

Candidates who have declared as white, 38 (71.7% of total group) were successful and 15 (28.3% of total group) were unsuccessful at interview stage.

Candidates that did not declare any ethnicity, 14 (77.8% of total group) were successful and 4 (22.2% of undeclared group) were unsuccessful.

The successful candidates were made up of 21.2% from Asian, black and other ethnic minority groups, 57.6% from white groups and 21.2% from undeclared groups.

Table 14 (3): Interview success by ethnicity

Ethnicity Count %
Asian, black and other ethnic minority 14 66.7%
White 38 71.7%
Unknown 14 77.8%

Total applications by gender

Table 15 (1) shows that we have received a gender breakdown of 560 (46.3%) applications declared as female, 593 (49%) declared as male, 3 (0.2%) declared as other and 53 (4.4%) as prefer not to say.

Table 15 (1): Applications by gender

Gender Count %
Female 560 46%
Male 593 49%
Other 3 0.2%
Prefer not to say 53 4.3%

Total sift success by gender

Table 15 (2) shows that 75 (34.4%) of those declared as female were successful at sift stage. 83 (41.3%) of those declared as male were successful at sift stage. 0 (0%) of those declared as other were successful at sift stage and 4 (12.1%) of those who preferred not to say were successful at sift stage.

Table 15 (2): Sift success by gender

Gender Count %
Female 75 65.6%
Male 83 41.3%
Other 0 0%
Prefer not to say 4 12.1%

Interview success by gender

Table 15 (3) shows that there were 66 successful candidates during the year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.

The success data shows 30 successful females (73.2%) of the total females interviewed. 34 males (70.8%) of males interviewed and 2 (67%) of those who preferred not to declare.

Table 15 (3): Interview success by gender

Gender Count %
Female 30 45.4%
Male 34 51.5%
Prefer not to say 2 3%

Total applications by sexual orientation

Table 16 (1) shows the breakdown of applications.1,028 (85%) of the applications were from heterosexual candidates, 101 (8.4%) from LGBO, and 80 (6.6%) prefer not to disclose.

Table 16 (1): Applications by sexual orientation

Sexual orientation Count %
Heterosexual 1,028 85%
LGBO 101 8.4%
Prefer not to say 80 6.6%

Total sift success by sexual orientation

Table 16 (2) shows that 144 (37%) of successful candidates are heterosexual, 12 (30%) of successful candidates are LGBO and 6 (24%) of successful candidates do not want to declare.

The data also shows that 245 (63%) of heterosexual candidates were unsuccessful, 28 (70%) of LGBO candidates were unsuccessful and 19 (75%) of candidates that do not want to declare were unsuccessful.

Table 16 (2): Sift success by sexual orientation

Sexual orientation Count %
Heterosexual 144 88.8%
LGBO 12 7.4%
Prefer not to say 6 3.7%

Interview success by sexual orientation

Table 16 (3) shows that out of the 84 heterosexual candidates, 59 (70%) were successful. Out of the 4 LGBO candidates all (100%) were successful and out of the 4 candidates that preferred not to disclose 3 (75%) were successful.

Table 16 (3): Interview success by sexual orientation

Sexual orientation Count %
Heterosexual 59 89.3%
LGBO 4 6%
Prefer not to say 3 4.5%

4. Promotion

The data analysis presented here shows employees promoted in relation to the protected characteristics of age, disability, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. The calculations are for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. During this period there were 36 members of staff who gained promotion.

The tables below show the total proportion of staff:

  • promoted in that category linked to the protected characteristic in that table
  • within that protected characteristic in Acas
  • within that protected characteristic that were successful in promotion

The data tells us that staff below the age of 25 did not gain promotion at all and staff between the ages of 35 and 44 had a higher rate of promotion. The promotion rates for 25 to 34 and 45 to 54 were the same with a slight decrease in promotion for those above the age of 55.

Asian, black and other ethnic minority staff promotion is still 3% higher than the headcount for the group in Acas and the promotion of white staff is just over 4% lower than the headcount for the group, however the portion of each group achieving promotion was 23% and 31.3% respectively.

The proportion of successful staff according to gender is consistently proportionate across this table.

LGBO staff have a higher proportionate rate of promotion in comparison to their headcount rate.

Full-time staff have a higher proportionate rate of promotion in comparison to their headcount rate but by comparison the part time staff rate of promotion is much lower than their headcount.

Table 17: Promotion by age

Age Portion of staff promoted by category Total portion of staff in group in Acas Total portion of promotion for each group in Acas
16 to 24 0% 2.1% 0
25 to 34 25% 17.4% 20.4%
35 to 44 30.6% 24.1% 23.2%
45 to 54 25% 25.2% 29.7%
55+ 19.4% 31.2% 47.1%

Table 18: Promotion by disability

Disability Portion of staff promoted by category Total portion of staff in group in Acas Total portion of promotion for each group in Acas
Disabled 19.4% 16.2% 24.4%
Not disabled 44.4% 37.3% 24.7%
Prefer not to say 8.3% 6.8% 24%
Unknown 27.8% 39.7% 42%

Table 19: Promotion by ethnicity

Ethnicity Portion of staff promoted by category Total portion of staff in group in Acas Total portion of promotion for each group in Acas
Asian, black and other ethnic minority group 13.9% 10.9% 23%
White 66.7% 71.1% 31.3%
Prefer not to say 0% 5.4% 0%
Unknown 19.4% 12.7% 19.1%

Table 20: Promotion by gender

Gender Portion of staff promoted by category Total portion of staff in group in Acas Total portion of promotion for each group in Acas
Female 58.3% 58.9% 3.4%
Male 41.7% 42.1% 3.4%

Table 21: Promotion by sexual orientation

Sexual orientation Portion of staff promoted by category Total portion of staff in group in Acas Total portion of promotion for each group in Acas
Heterosexual 72.2% 70.6% 28.7%
LGBO 8.3% 4.9% 17.3%
Prefer not to say 19.4% 11% 0%
Unknown 19.4% 13.5% 20.4%

Table 22: Promotion by working pattern

Working pattern Portion of staff promoted by category Total portion of staff in group in Acas Total portion of promotion for each group in Acas
Full-time 91.7% 78.4% 25.2%
Part-time 8.3% 21.6% 76%

5. Leavers

The overall data tells us that the reason for leaving given was:

  • 'other' 51%
  • resignation 28.75%
  • retirement 14.3%
  • dismissal 5.5%

The data also tells us that:

  • the percentage of Asian, black and other minority ethnic staff made up 50% of dismissals, but this was because the numbers of staff dismissed were very low
  • reasons for leaving by gender were fairly evenly split across the leaving reasons
  • reasons for leaving by work type were fairly even apart from retirement where 35% of part-time staff retired compared to 8.6% of full-time staff
  • the only group of staff that retired during the period were white
  • a proportion of disabled staff made up 14.3% of dismissals but this was because the numbers of staff declared disabled that were dismissed is very low
  • age 16 to 24 is the largest age turnover group

Dismissals equated to 5.5% of leavers departing Acas. Dismissals range over the 25 to 44 and the 55+ age categories. Dismissals relating to gender are fairly evenly split with a slight predominance of female dismissals. Dismissal percentages relating to ethnicity and disability are high, because of the low number of disclosures and dismissals in these areas. There is an even split of dismissals between full-time and part-time workers and also a predominance of heterosexual staff with a portion of non-disclosure staff dismissals.

Leavers for reasons of 'other' equated to 51.8% of departures.

Resignation was the second largest reason for leaving.

Table 23: Leavers by age

Age Dismissal Other Resignation Retirement
16 to 24 0% 75% 25% 0%
25 to 34 10% 70% 20% 0%
35 to 44 4.3% 52.2% 43.5% 0%
45 to 54 0% 40% 53.3% 6.7%
55+ 5.6% 22.2% 5.6% 66.7%

Table 24: Leavers by disability

Disability Dismissal Other Resignation Retirement
Disabled 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6%
Not disabled 0% 60% 20% 20%
Prefer not to say 0% 100% 0% 0%
Unknown 5.6% 50.7% 31% 12.7%

Table 25: Leavers by ethnicity

Ethnicity Dismissal Other Resignation Retirement
Asian, black and other ethnic minority staff 50% 50% 0% 0%
White 5.4% 43.2% 16.2% 35.2%
Prefer not to say 0% 100% 0% 0%
Unknown 4.2% 54.2% 41.7% 0%

Table 26: Leavers by gender

Gender Dismissal Other Resignation Retirement
Female 6.3% 45.8% 31.3% 16.7%
Male 4.7% 57.1% 26.2% 11.9%

Table 27: Leavers by sexual orientation

Sexual orientation Dismissal Other Resignation Retirement
Heterosexual 9.1% 42.4% 12.1% 36.4%
LGBO 0% 66.7% 33.3% 0%
Prefer not to say 0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3%
Unknown 3.9% 56.9% 39.2% 0%

Table 28: Leavers by work type

Work type Dismissal Other Resignation Retirement
Full-time 5.7% 54.3% 31.4% 8.6%
Part-time 5% 40% 20% 35%

6. Performance management data

The data analysis presented here shows the reasons why employees leave Acas in relation to each of the protected characteristics of age, disability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and work type for the period 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021. There were 90 leavers during this period.

Between the period of 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021, 95.2% of staff achieved a satisfactory assessment on their performance, 0.8% received an unsatisfactory assessment and 4% were on probation.

Also during this period, 2.7% of staff were unable to be assessed because of leaving, career breaks, retirement, long term sickness or partial or full change of role.

A full assessment into the diversity of staff relating to the performance management processes are not currently available in this reporting period. However, there will be a focus on the collection of this data for future equality reporting.

7. Grievances and disciplinary procedures

There were 10 formal grievances raised during the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. Informal grievances are dealt with by management at a local level and therefore not recorded centrally or included in the data below. There were 7 disciplinaries during the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.

Grievance data

The data below is as reported and therefore any columns excluded have a negative return.

Table 29: Grievances by disability

Disabled Not disabled Unknown
10% 10% 80%

Table 30: Grievances by ethnicity

Prefer not to say White Unknown
30% 60% 10%

Table 31: Grievances by gender

Female Male
50% 50%

Table 32: Grievances by sexual orientation

Heterosexual LGBO Prefer not to say Unknown
50% 10% 30% 10%

Table 33: Grievances by work type

Full-time Part-time
80% 20%

Table 34: Reasons for grievance

Because of the need to ensure confidentiality, grievances reasons have been grouped together.

Reason %
Benefits including pay and time off 40%
Bullying and harassment 20%
Reasonable adjustments and recruitment 30%
Multiple issues 10%

Disciplinary data

The data below is as reported and therefore any columns excluded have a negative return.

Table 35: Disciplinary by disability

Disabled Prefer not to say Unknown
29% 14% 57%

Table 36: Disciplinary by ethnicity

Asian, black, other ethnic minority group White Prefer not to say
14% 57% 29%

Table 37: Disciplinary by gender

Female Male
57% 43%

Table 38: Disciplinary by sexual orientation

Heterosexual LGBO Prefer not to say
57% 14% 29%

Table 39: Disciplinary by work type

Full-time Part-time
71% 29%

Table 40: Reasons for disciplinary action

Because of the need to ensure confidentiality, disciplinary reasons have been grouped together

Reason %
Unappropriated behaviour 25%
Breach of rules, absence, GDPR, performance and fraudulent activity 75%

8. Employee engagement

The results are taken from the Civil Service People Survey conducted in October of every year. At the end of the survey, staff were asked to complete a diversity monitoring form, which is voluntary. Because of this fact not all staff who completed the survey completed the diversity monitoring information collected and for those that did complete this section not all staff filled in all categories should be taken into account. From the data that was available, the following table shows their engagement index scores.

The overall engagement rate is 68%. Disabled staff engagement is slightly lower at 67%. Asian, black and other ethnic minority staff engagement is slightly lower at 65%.  Women are more positively engaged at 70% and those staff who are gay, lesbian or bisexual are more positively engaged at 75%.

Figures of bullying and harassment from the 2019 survey have remained the same.

The data for the overall average for those who felt that they had been discriminated against has fallen by 1% at 6% compared to the 2019 survey.

Engagement is below the overall average in the 2020 survey for ethnicity and disability whilst above average for female and LGBO groups.

Table 41: Engagement indicators

  Response rate Engagement rate
Acas 783 68%
Disability 192 67%
Ethnicity 48 65%
Female 408 70%
Gay, lesbian or bisexual 43 75%

Table 42: Inclusion, discrimination and bullying or harassment

Acas average in all areas.

Inclusion rate Differential on previous year
80% +1%
Discriminated against – Yes Differential on previous year
6% -1%
Bullied or harassed – Yes Differential on previous year
5% Same