The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

DIVERSITY IN THE PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS PROCESS IN SCOTLAND

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study was commissioned by the Scottish Executive 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.

This was a qualitative study which examined the views of those with a key role in public appointments and equalities issues in Scotland through:

• Four detailed case studies of public appointments rounds.
• A postal survey of a further 16 public appointments rounds in the year to December 2002.
• Face to face interviews with key organisations.
• A postal survey of other key participants.
• Examination of good practice information.

The key participants in a public appointments process are as follows:

• The Scottish Executive Public Appointments Team, which is responsible for overall policy, monitoring the process as it pertains to the Executive and providing support to sponsor teams.
• The Scottish Executive Sponsor Team, which manages the process within their own area of business.
• An Independent Assessor, who is responsible for the scrutiny of the process and for ensuring the implementation of the Code of Practice.
• A Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) representative (normally the Chairperson) who represents the interests of the body and participates in the selection process.
• The relevant Minister who makes the final decision.
• The 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) when appointed in the spring of 2004. The data has been analysed and presented qualitatively, reflecting the overall purpose of identifying good practice and areas for further development (rather than attempting to quantify the prevalence of specific issues).

The overall message which comes 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's 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 participants' interpretation of the implications of this in practice, as well as different views of the nature of barriers to equality/diversity and differences in the extent to which appointments rounds took positive action. Alongside the developments therefore, were examples of rounds in which there was further scope to identify and promote positive action. A range of more general suggestions were also made relating to promoting diversity in the public appointments process as a whole.

All of these findings are presented together with the common purpose of identifying good practice developments. It is not suggested that the barriers were identified in every case, nor that they were experienced by all or even the majority of candidates. Instead, as with instances of good practice, they are used to provide examples of perceived issues which might affect participation by under-represented groups. The aim in examining these barriers (whatever their prevalence), is to assist in the identification of the key components of good practice for the development of a more effective appointments process within the Executive and ultimately a diversity strategy. The suggestions constitute a positive means of assisting the Scottish Executive and the Commissioner in identifying the way forward for the future, and are not intended as a critique of individual appointments rounds.

In terms of the main findings, the research identified that barriers to participation by under-represented groups can potentially be introduced where an appointments process:

• Does not consider equality/diversity issues fully at specific stages, nor take positive steps to encourage participation.
• Uses materials or information which may (in its nature, content or volume) discourage under-represented groups.
• Uses material which (in text, language and images) presents a particular image of an organisation (e.g. as male, white etc.)
• Identifies, specifies or selects on the basis of unnecessary skills and criteria which are outwith the experience of many people from under-represented groups.
• Uses formal, inappropriate and inaccessible language and does not provide material in a range of formats.
• Uses publicity methods which are unlikely to attract under-represented groups.
• Uses complex application materials/forms.
• Uses a selection panel which does not reflect diversity.
• Uses formal or otherwise inappropriate means of selection.
• Conducts interviews without sufficient preparation.
• Adopts an approach which does not identify and address candidates' requirements.
• Adopts interview and selection procedures which may disadvantage candidates from under-represented groups.
• Provides superficial feedback, vague feedback or no feedback.
• Collects sensitive monitoring information without explanation.

The research also identified a number of potential wider contextual and cultural barriers to participation in public appointments, including:

• The level of awareness of public appointments.
• Current perceptions of public appointments, in terms of 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.
• Information, measurement and the review of diversity.

Against this background, a number of rounds were identified in which good practice had developed to address such potential barriers to participation, including cases in which there had been:

• Discussion of diversity issues at different stages in the process, with a view to identifying positive action needed.
• Inclusion of positive statements and other information in the materials used, to provide encouragement to under-represented groups.
• Attempts to ensure the use of appropriate language and clarity.
• Specification of appropriate skills and the inclusion of a wide range of experience.
• Local advertising and the use of a range of publications and media.
• Circulation of targeted information.
• Use of accessible, local venues for interviews, along with identification of candidates' needs and steps taken to address these.
• Involvement of a diverse group of panel members.
• Provision of routine and appropriate feedback/discussion with candidates.
• Increased development of different means of reflecting the commitment to equality/diversity in practice.

Additional good practice suggestions which were identified included:

• Consideration of the volume and content of materials, to include the provision of sufficient relevant information.
• Provision of material in appropriate formats.
• Consideration of the content of application forms and other materials.
• Preparation of all panel members for interview.
• Adoption of consistent good practice at all stages, considering and addressing all of the potential barriers and ensuring a common approach to these issues.

As well as good practice developments in specific rounds, there were also examples of developments by the Public Appointments Team (PAT), which were considered likely to have a further impact on practice in the future. Cross cutting developments included:

• New developments in centralisation/scrutiny of appointments materials by the PAT and the promotion of greater consistency.
• Provision of improved guidance to sponsor teams, emphasising the importance of addressing diversity.
• Use of a guaranteed interview scheme.
• NDPB shadowing.
• Developments in publicity and awareness raising.
• Greater consideration of the location of advertisements.
• Liaison with the Executive's Equality Unit.

All of these developments provided further examples of working to promote diversity in public appointments. The main purpose of this report was to use these positive examples (along with perceptions of the potential barriers) to present the key elements of good practice for the future. On the basis of all of these findings, the report makes a number of suggestions about the steps which should be taken. The main recommendations which are made focus on promoting consistent best practice through:

• The use of the findings of this report to inform the preparation of the diversity strategy.
• Provision of training to all of those involved in the public appointments process.
• Provision and use of a good practice checklist, supported by explanatory material, to assist in the elimination of potential barriers.
• Re-emphasis of the role of all participants in the public appointments process in the promotion of equality.
• Dissemination and review of good practice information.
• Continued scrutiny of the public appointments process by the Public Appointments Team, with a specific focus upon diversity.
• Review and amendment of document templates to reflect the findings of this report.
• Continued development of links with under-represented groups.
• Encouragement of work to address contextual and cultural barriers.
• Development of monitoring information.
• Continued review of the public appointments process and diversity strategy.

It is recognised that some of these actions are already under way (or are planned). The value of this report is in drawing these together, to provide comprehensive advice which can ensure a consistent approach to equality/diversity in the future.

« Previous | Contents | Next »