Findings from the SC-WRES data

The findings from the SC-WRES data are taken from nine indicators. The data analysis is carried out at organisational level, enabling local authorities to develop action plans to drive positive change within their organisations, and it’s also used to produce a national report, giving an anonymous reflection of the social care sector.

Participating local authorities submit their data against the nine indicators, and the data collected about global majority employees is then compared to data about white employees. Local authorities use this data to create action plans to address the findings through short term, medium term, long term, sustainable and measurable goals.

Headline findings from the SC-WRES 2023 report

If you are a colleague from a Black, Asian and minority ethnic background you are:

• Half as likely to be appointed from shortlisting in the last 12 months, compared to white staff (0.5 likelihood).
• 40% more likely to enter the formal disciplinary process, compared to white staff (1.4 likelihood)
• More than twice as likely as a regulated professional to enter the fitness-to practice process in the last 12 months, compared to white staff (2.1 likelihood)
• As likely to have funded non-mandatory continuous professional development in the last 12 months, compared to white staff (1.0 likelihood)
• 20% more likely to have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse from service users, relatives or the public in the last 12 months, compared to white staff (1.2 likelihood)
• 30% more likely as a colleague and 90% more likely as a manager to have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse from colleagues and managers in last 12 months, compared to white staff (1.3 and 1.9 likelihood respectively)
• 10% more likely to leave the organisation during the last 12 months, compared to white staff (1.1 likelihood).

The nine indicators

The SC-WRES supports employers to measure the experiences of their team against nine key indicators:

1. Percentage of directly employed staff from a minority ethnic background, within each pay band, compared with the percentage of white staff.
2. Relative likelihood of directly employed staff from a minority ethnic background being appointed from shortlisting in the last 12 months, compared to white staff.
3. Relative likelihood of directly employed staff from a minority ethnic background entering the formal disciplinary process compared to white staff.
4. Relative likelihood of directly employed regulated professionals from a minority ethnic background entering the fitness-to-practice process in the last 12 months compared to white staff.
5. Relative likelihood of directly employed staff from a minority ethnic background accessing funded non-mandatory continuous professional development in the last 12 months as compared to white staff.
6. Relative likelihood of directly employed staff from a minority ethnic background experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from people who use social care, relatives or the public in last 12 months compared to white staff.
7. Relative likelihood of directly employed staff from a minority ethnic background experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from colleagues or managers in last 12 months compared to white staff.
8. Relative likelihood of directly employed staff from a minority ethnic background leaving the organisation during the last 12 months compared to white staff.
9. Percentage of directly employed staff from a minority ethnic background in senior manager membership roles compared with the percentage of white staff.

Print this page