The Scottish Government

Listen

Main Findings

• There is a commitment in Scotland and the UK to promoting diversity in public appointments, with a need for boards of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) to reflect more fully the social and cultural mix of the community.
• Progress has been made towards this in recent developments within the Scottish Executive and this study found examples of good practice in individual public appointments rounds.
• The research, however, also found some variation between rounds, in the level of equality training amongst participants and in their practice (e.g. the extent to which they took positive action to promote diversity and in their general approach to recognising and addressing barriers to participation).
• Most of those involved in conducting public appointments did not believe that the process affected participation by under-represented groups, although a small proportion did identify barriers in their own rounds. Equalities organisations and other respondents who were not directly involved in individual rounds identified a range of potential barriers.
• The main areas in which potential barriers (and good practice suggestions) were identified were: the extent of consideration of equality in the process; the level and clarity of information; the selection criteria; the language and format of materials; the location of publicity; the application forms; the composition of the interview panel; the selection process; the steps taken to address candidates' needs and the nature of the feedback and monitoring undertaken.
• A number of barriers and suggestions outwith the public appointments process were also identified, including: the level of awareness and perceptions of public appointments; the operation of NDPBs and the Scottish Executive; the capacity of some groups to participate; financial barriers and the ongoing review of initiatives intended to improve diversity.
• The research recommendations will be used to review and improve the Executive's existing appointments process and will also inform the diversity strategy to be developed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland (when appointed).

Introduction

This study was commissioned to examine the public appointments process in Scotland, to identify the reasons for the current under-representation of a number of groups and to make recommendations to help to produce a more diverse range of candidates.

It was anticipated that the findings of this research would also inform the development of a diversity strategy, which will be part of the remit of the new Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland (CPAS).

Methodology

This was a qualitative study which examined the views of those with a key role in public appointments and equalities issues in Scotland and candidates who had applied for public appointments, through:

• Four detailed case studies of public appointments rounds in the year to December 2002.
• A postal survey of a further 16 public appointments rounds in the year to December 2002.
• Face to face interviews with key organisations with an interest in equality / diversity in public appointments.
• A postal survey of other key participants with a role in public appointments.
• Examination of documentary material relating to good practice.

Overall Findings

The overall message from this research is that there is a clear commitment at Scottish and UK government levels to the promotion of equality and diversity in public appointments, and a recognised need to ensure that the boards of NDPBs reflect more fully the "social and cultural mix" in Scotland.

Progress has been made towards this in recent developments by the Scottish Executive Public Appointments Team and the practices followed in Scotland, and some appointments rounds have taken specific steps to address diversity issues. The research found examples of good practice at most stages of individual processes.

Within this framework however, the research also found examples of some variation in practice (between rounds and amongst participants of different types) in their approaches to equality / diversity. Although there was a shared agreement about the need to reflect the social and cultural mix of the community on the boards of NDPBs, there were variations in practical interpretation, as well as different views of the nature of barriers to equality and the extent to which appointments rounds took positive action. Alongside the developments, therefore, were examples of rounds in which there was further scope for positive action. More general suggestions were also made relating to promoting diversity in the public appointments process as a whole.

The research report presents all of these findings together, in order to identify good practice developments. It is not suggested that barriers were identified in every case, nor that they were experienced by all, or even the majority of candidates. They provide examples however, of perceived issues which might affect participation by under-represented groups and help to identify the key components of good practice for the development of a diversity strategy.

Barriers to Participation

The research identified that barriers to participation by under-represented groups can potentially be introduced in a number of ways.

Where a public appointments process does not consider equality / diversity issues fully at specific stages, nor take positive steps to encourage participation, this may deter under-represented groups, who may experience barriers in the process and may not see the relevance of the post to them, nor the ways in which they can contribute.

Public appointments processes can also introduce barriers if they use materials or information which (in its nature, content or volume) may discourage under-represented groups. The text, language and images can also present a particular picture of an organisation (e.g. as male, white etc.) and may be too formal or inaccessible and appear to be unavailable in appropriate formats. Similarly, where complex application materials / forms are used, this can also deter some potential candidates.

Where a process identifies, specifies or selects on the basis of unnecessary skills and criteria which are outwith the experience of many people from under-represented groups, this may also present barriers to participation.

The nature of advertising and publicity was also highlighted as important, with the suggestion that barriers to participation can be introduced where an appointments process uses publicity methods which are unlikely to attract under-represented groups.

A number of aspects of the selection process were also identified as potentially creating barriers to participation. For example, where the composition of a selection panel does not reflect the need for diversity this was again seen to deter under-represented groups. The use of formal or otherwise inappropriate selection methods, the failure to meet candidates' needs and the conduct of interviews themselves can also impact upon the level of participation and the nature of involvement of under-represented groups.

Lastly, it was suggested that feedback and monitoring can also affect future participation. For example, where a public appointments process provides superficial feedback, vague feedback, or no feedback to unsuccessful candidates, this was seen to make it less likely that they would apply again in the future. It was also noted that the means of collection of monitoring information could impact upon candidates' experiences.

The research also identified some broader contextual and cultural barriers, including:

• The low level of awareness amongst the general public of public appointments.
• Current perceptions of public appointments (including who is appointed, the perceived political nature of the process and perceptions of NDPBs).
• The operation of NDPBs and the Scottish Executive.
• The capacity of some groups to participate in the current process.
• Financial problems for potential candidates.
• Information, measurement and the review of diversity.

Good Practice

Against this background, a number of rounds were identified in which good practice had developed. Examples were given of rounds in which there had been discussion of diversity issues at different stages, with a view to identifying positive action needed. There were also examples of using positive statements and other information in the materials, to encourage under-represented groups.

Some rounds had taken specific steps to ensure the use of appropriate language and to specify appropriate skills and criteria, including a wide range of experience. Examples were also provided of the use of local advertising and a range of publications and media, as well as the circulation of targeted information.

Good practice in interviews included involving a diverse group of panel members; using accessible local venues; identifying and addressing candidates' needs.

There were also examples of feedback being provided. It was also clear that a range of work was developing through the Public Appointments Team to increase the focus upon equality / diversity in practice.

Recommendations

The main recommendations of the study focus on promoting consistent best practice in a number of ways. These include that:

• training should be provided to all of those involved in conducting public appointments processes;
• a good practice checklist, supported by explanatory material, should be developed and used, with the report providing a draft checklist as a starting point for further discussion;
• the role of all participants in the promotion of equality should be re-emphasised, with good practice information reviewed and disseminated and continued scrutiny of the public appointments process by the Public Appointments Team (with a specific focus on diversity);
• document templates should be amended to reflect the research findings;
• links should continue to be developed with under-represented groups;
• work to address contextual and cultural barriers to participation should be encouraged and
  • monitoring information should be developed further, with the continued review of the public appointments process and diversity strategy.

It is suggested that the findings of the report should also be used in the development of the diversity strategy.

It is recognised that some of these actions are already under way (or are planned) and that some may have resource implications. However, the value of this report is in drawing them all together to provide comprehensive advice which will help the Executive ensure a consistent approach to equality / diversity in future public appointments.