King’s College London Silver Application 2016

Institution Application Bronze and Silver Award

Name of institution King’s College London

Date of application 22nd December

(due to extenuating circumstances/approved by ECU)

Award Level Level: Silver

Date joined Athena SWAN 2007

Current award Date: August 2013 Level: Bronze

Contact for application Jo Lawton

Email [email protected]

Telephone 020 7848 4317

1. Letter of endorsement from the head of department

Recommended word count: Silver: 500 words

3

President & Principal

Professor Edward Byrne

James Clark Maxwell Building

57 Waterloo Road

London SE1 8WA

Tel: 020 7848 3434

[email protected] www.kcl.ac.uk

Dear Athena SWAN Charter Manager, I am delighted to endorse this application. It is a significant milestone, testifying to the dedication of the university’s USAT and all our Athena SWAN groups. The information presented here is an honest and accurate picture of where we are in our journey to improve gender equality. It’s my job to ensure King’s becomes a national leader in this area. While at Monash, Australia, I received a national award for ensuring that gender equality was at the top of the university’s priority list. Now at King’s, I have put this commitment into practice by co-chairing the USAT with Baroness Morgan from Council and by immediately signing up to the 2015 Charter principles. My responsibility is to ensure diversity and inclusion are core to our institution. I have personally ensured that we have:

Made D&I a cornerstone of our new Strategic Vision 2029

Deans and Directors who are accountable for meeting KPIs on gender and race

An annual central D&I budget of over £300,000 for gender equality programmes

I’m proud that our Athena SWAN work has real energy, and has been showing concrete results. Since 2013 we have:

Six Bronze and 12 Silver Athena SWAN awards

A strong Student D&I Ambassador team (4F, 1M, 3 BME, 2 White) campaigning and promoting student facing initiatives

Piloted Inclusive Leadership with 40 senior academic and professional service managers

Witnessed significant improvements in promotion outcomes for academic women

Sponsored 50 women on the national Aurora programme, mentored 100 women through the university’s Gender Ambitions scheme, and supported 330 women to attend the Springboard scheme for postdoctoral and PhD women

Supported 52 staff through the Parental Leave Fund and 34 through the Carers Career Development Fund

Adopted a best practice response to the introduction of Shared Parental Leave

Seen improvements in maternity return rates and men taking long periods of Shared Parental Leave

Put SLT, Council, Academic Staffing Committee, and over 1,700 members of (existing) staff through Unconscious Bias training, prioritising those in decision-making roles

Communicated our dedication to diversity; our staff survey shows that 95% of staff were aware of our commitment

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/

4

There is a still a long way to go. There are significant pipeline issues within STEMM at the junior levels, and for STEMM, AHSSBL and Professional Services at senior levels. The senior team and I are using the Action Plan to address our current challenges, including:

Supporting projects to create a consistent flexible working culture

Tackling gender disparities across disciplines e.g. a lack of men in Nursing and senior women in Security Studies

Shrinking an academic and Professional Services Gender Pay Gap which has been entrenched for five years

Supporting staff with young children and other caring responsibilities

Our Athena SWAN efforts, both at local and university level, have provided us with an understanding of our progress and what has to happen next. I feel proud that the importance of achieving gender parity is now deeply embedded at King’s. Thank you for considering our application for a Silver Institutional Award. Yours sincerely,

Professor Edward Byrne AC MBA President & Principal

TOTAL WORDS SECTION ONE = 497

Meet the Professors

5

Glossary of abbreviations

Abbreviations

A&H Faculty of Arts & Humanities

A&S Arts & Sciences

AHSSBL Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Business & Law

ALC6 Academic Related Grade 6; pay grade for senior PS staff

APL Additional Paternity Leave

ASC Academic Staffing Committee

Aurora Aurora Women's Leadership Programme

BME Black and Minority Ethnic

CCDF Carer's Career Development Fund

CEC College Education Committee

CPD Continuing Professional Development

CRC College Research Committee

CRSD Centre for Research Staff Development

CS Central Services

D&I Diversity & Inclusion

DISG Diversity & Inclusion Steering Group

EIA Equality Impact Analysis

FNFNM Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery

FoLSM Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine

FPE Full Person Equivalent

FT Full-Time

FTCs Fixed-Term Contracts

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

GAMS Gender Ambitions Mentoring Scheme

GDC Global Diversity Council

GPG Gender Pay Gap

GTA Graduate Teaching Assistant

HEIDI Higher Education Information Database for Institutions

HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency

IDA Information Development & Analysis team

IoPPN Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience

IWD International Women’s Day

KCLSU King’s College London Student’s Union

KDC King’s Diversity Community

KIT Keeping In Touch

KLI King’s Learning Institute

Law The Dickson Poon School of Law

6

LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender

NMS Faculty of Natural and Mathematical Sciences (sits within A&S but grouped with STEMM faculties in the data)

OD Organisational Development

PDR Performance Development Review

PLF Parenting Leave Fund

PS Professional Services

PT Part-Time

R&S Recruitment & Selection

RAE Research Assessment Exercise

REF Research Excellence Framework

REM Race Equality Charter Mark

RERC Revenue and Expenditure Review Committee

SAT Self-Assessment Team

SED Students and Education Directorate

SET Senior Executive Team

SFA Strategy for Action

SL Senior Lecturer

SLT Senior Leadership Team

SPL Shared Parental Leave

Springboard Springboard Women's Development Programme

SSPP Faculty of Social Sciences & Public Policy

STEMM Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths & Medicine

TF Teaching Fellow

UG Undergraduate

USAT University Self-Assessment Team

VP Vice President/Principal

WP Widening Participation

7

Submission notes

Student Data Provides a count of full-person equivalent (FPE) instances.

Staff Data

In most cases, staff data counts full-time equivalent (FTE) instances and is taken from the HESA return. Where data is from other sources, this has been indicated.

In all cases, we have analysed five years of data, but for issues of practicality have occasionally presented three years for large datasets.

Benchmarks

A range of benchmarks have been provided including: Russell Group, National and Silver institutional AS award holder averages (as at 2016).

The benchmarking data has been drawn from the HEIDI database for 2014-15 and counts FPE instances. It is not directly comparable to the internal data used.

King’s Staff Survey Results 2015

These have been summarised in tables by gender/job type etc. and indicate the level of agreement with statements shown.

8

2. Description of the Institution


King’s has 27,000 students and 7,000 employees, five London campuses, a Defence Academy in Wiltshire (Shrivenham), and an IT base in Cornwall.

We comprise eight academic faculties spanning a broad range of disciplines. An organisational diagram of our Senior Management structures is below.

9

Figure 2.1: Diagram of our Senior Management structures

10

10

(i) information on where the institution is in the Athena SWAN process

Figure 2.2: Timeline of King’s involvement with AS

In 2012-13, SLT reviewed its approach to diversity. There have been significant changes and investment as outlined in the Principal’s letter above and in the figure below.

Figure 2.3: Overview of how participation in Diversity & Inclusion and AS at King’s has grown (2013-2017)

Action Plan implemented

Further pay gap analyses

Launch D&I recruitment materials

Initiate Childcare Review

Flexible working project

Launch of Diversity Mentoring Scheme

1 FTE AS lead in Law

Total 6 FTE focused on AS and 6 focused on AS/D&I

2017

AS Champions Network expanded into D&I Network

PS D&I Sounding board created (April)

Science Council Employer Champion (October)

2 Bronze applications

1 Silver application

A&S Faculties AS Team → 3 FTE (Sept)

2016

Unified checklist of actions (SFA) for gender & race launched & all faculties/

directorates sign up

Juno Practitioner Physics award

Gender Equality Charter Mark pilot award (Bronze)

3 successful Bronzes

6 successful Silvers

1 FTE A&S Faculties lead

NMS PS AS lead increased from 0.2 0.6 FTE

IoPPN AS Team → 2 FTE

FoLSM AS team → 3 FTE

2015

Provost and AS PM review applications and provide coaching sessions to applicants

8 successful Bronzes

5 successful Silvers

1 Bronze GEM

IoPPN PS AS lead increases from 0.6 1 FTE

2 FTE PS AS Team in FoLSM

2014Institutional Steering Group in place

Cross AS university Champions Network established

0.2 FTE PS AS lead in NMS

0.6 FTE PS AS lead in IoPPN

1 FTE PS AS lead (Dec)

2013

Figure 2.4: University Departmental, Divisional and Faculty Athena SWAN awards

All areas of the University are listed below, including existing AS awards as well as future plans.

$ denotes launch of an independent faculty in September 2017

*denotes new May 2015 paperwork

Proposed Schedule

Ap

ril 2

01

4

No

vem

ber

20

14

Ap

ril 2

01

5

No

vem

ber

20

15

Ap

ril 2

01

6

No

vem

ber

20

16

Ap

ril 2

01

7

No

vem

ber

20

17

Ap

ril 2

01

8

No

vem

ber

20

18

Ap

ril 2

01

9

No

vem

ber

20

19

Ap

ril 2

02

0

No

vem

ber

20

20

Arts & Humanities

English B*

History B* B/S*

Dental Institute S S*

Dickson Poon School of Law B*

Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine

Analytical & Environmental Sciences

S S*

Asthma, Allergy & Lung Biology

B B/S*

Cancer Studies B B* B/S*

Cardiovascular Division

S S/G*

Centre for Human Aerospace &

B B/S*

Physiological Sciences

Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care

B S* S*

Diabetes & Nutritional Sciences

S S*

Division of Immunology, Infection & Inflammatory Disease

S S*

Genetics & Molecular Medicine

B S S*

Health & Social Care Research

B B* S*

Imaging Sciences & Biomedical Engineering

B S S/G*

Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences

B* B/S*

Randall Division of Cell & Molecular Biology

B S* S*

Transplantation, Immunology & Mucosal Biology

S* S*

Women's Health S S/G*

Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery

S S/G*

Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry & Neuroscience

S S/G*

Natural & Mathematical Sciences

Chemistry

Facu

lty

Bro

nze

B*

Informatics S*

Mathematics B*

Physics Juno

Social Science & Public Policy

Policy Institute B*

School of Education, Communication and Society

B*

School of Global Affairs

B GEM

B*

School of Security Studies

B*

School of Management & Business

$

School of Politics and Economics

X

Renewal dates vary between 3-4 years (dependent on pre/post-May 2015 application). IoPPN, Women’s Health, Cardiovascular and FNFNM are working towards Gold.

Individual A&H departments are not listed due to a proposed 2017 re-organisation; similarly the School of Management & Business, which will become a faculty in 2017/18 is not included.

Photo: AS award celebrations, summer 2015, featuring AS Professional Service and Academic Leads, hosted by the President & Principal Professor Ed Byrne, VP & Provost (Arts & Sciences) Professor Evelyn Welch and VP & Provost (Health) Professor Robert Lechler

15

15

(ii) information on its teaching and its research focus

Our large Nursing Faculty and absence of Engineering students accentuate a higher than average proportion of female students. King’s is strong in biomedical research, with FoLSM and IoPPN earning over £200m in grants; this means we employ a large predominantly female (60%) externally funded postdoctoral research workforce.

(iii) the number of staff. Present data for academic and professional and

support staff separately

Figure 2.5: Headcount and proportion of women to men of Academic and PS staff

Academic staff numbers have increased, maintaining an overall 50:50 balance. Expansion in female appointments has tended to occur in lower grades. In PS, there are more women (60%) than men, again in lower grades.

16

16

(iv) the total number of departments and total number of students

Figure 2.6: Total numbers of male and female students

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Female 15839 16044 17142 17442 18395

62% 63% 63% 63% 64%

Male 9524 9419 10147 10196 10326

38 % 37% 37% 37% 36%

Students have increased by 3,358 over the period; 76% through female enrolments. Our WP Team aims to attract men into female-dominated UG programmes (such as Nursing and A&H), as well as women into programmes such as Physics and Mathematics.

Figure 2.7: Total number of students by faculty

Student growth has occurred in female dominated disciplines in A&H, SSPP, and FNFNM. Moderate growth in FoLSM and the IoPPN has also influenced gender balance. The balance will change again in 2018, following expansion in computer sciences and engineering.

Faculty

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Dental Institute 646 56% 500 44% 624 57% 466 43% 665 57% 494 43% 679 57% 511 43% 663 55% 539 45%

Dickson Poon School of

Law 1156 60% 784 40% 1128 59% 776 41% 995 59% 694 41% 865 57% 648 43% 910 57% 698 43%

English Language Centre

& Summer

School 119 60% 81 41% 117 65% 63 35% 437 63% 254 37% 162 61% 102 39% 54 67% 27 33%

Faculty of Arts &

Humanities 2145 61% 1347 39% 2347 60% 1557 40% 2807 61% 1760 39% 3018 62% 1822 38% 3151 64% 1782 36%

Faculty of Life Sciences

and Medicine 3673 62% 2208 38% 3656 63% 2182 37% 3769 62% 2345 38% 3873 62% 2417 38% 3887 63% 2317 37%

Faculty of Natural &

Mathematical

Sciences 601 30% 1385 70% 551 31% 1238 69% 545 31% 1235 69% 548 30% 1250 70% 648 31% 1476 69%

Faculty of Social Science

& Public Policy 2310 53% 2073 47% 2633 54% 2233 46% 2714 54% 2322 46% 2719 54% 2320 46% 3037 57% 2321 43%

Florence Nightingale

Faculty of Nursing

& Midwifery 4109 87% 591 13% 4152 88% 562 12% 4177 88% 547 12% 4295 88% 565 12% 4704 89% 601 11%

Institute of Psychiatry,

Psychology and

Neuroscience 786 71% 320 29% 818 72% 321 28% 824 72% 324 28% 968 75% 327 25% 1044 76% 335 24%

King's Learning Institute 294 56% 235 44% 18 46% 21 54% 209 55% 172 45% 315 57% 234 43% 297 56% 230 44%

Female Male

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Female Male Female Male

2014/15


17

17

Figure 2.8: Proportion of King’s female students compared to UK universities, London universities and Russell group universities

Our student demographic is atypical. King's has a higher proportion of female students than the benchmark, with a larger proportion of students in AHSSBL faculties than many research-intensive institutions which tend to focus on STEMM. FNFNM also draws a high proportion of women.

18

18

(v) list and sizes of science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine (STEMM) and

arts, humanities, social science, business and law (AHSSBL) departments. Present

data for academic and support staff separately

Figure 2.9: Academic and research staff within our STEMM, AHSSBL and CS Departments

A small number of CS colleagues employed on academic contracts are presented for transparency. Female staff have remained stable (51%) with increases in the percentage of women in DI, FoLSM and NMS, where AS activities have targeted female staff recruitment.

Faculty no % no % no % no % no % no % no % no % no % no %

AHSSBL

Faculty of Arts & Humanities 317 52% 293 48% 386 51% 368 49% 451 51% 437 49% 515 52% 485 49% 535 52% 491 48%

Faculty of Social Science &

Public Policy 190 41% 277 59% 212 41% 311 59% 255 43% 333 57% 290 41% 416 59% 297 42% 416 58%

The Dickson Poon School of

Law 53 40% 79 60% 47 36% 85 64% 74 42% 102 58% 69 39% 110 61% 69 40% 105 60%

STEMM


Faculty of Life Sciences &

Medicine 682 51% 662 49% 732 50% 724 50% 763 50% 751 50% 797 51% 772 49% 849 52% 787 48%


Mathematical Sciences 34 16% 174 84% 45 20% 177 80% 54 21% 205 79% 53 19% 224 81% 57 19% 243 81%

Florence Nightingale Faculty

of Nursing & Midwifery 128 82% 28 18% 133 84% 25 16% 143 87% 22 13% 140 87% 21 13% 137 88% 18 12%

Health School Services 2 33% 4 67% 6 50% 6 50% 2 50% 2 50% 4 50% 4 50% 2 33% 4 67%


Psychology & Neuroscience 608 62% 365 38% 583 60% 381 40% 609 60% 410 40% 675 61% 429 39% 728 62% 451 38%

Central

Centre for Technology

Enhanced Learning 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100%

Culture at King's 2 100% 0% 3 100% 0%

English Language Centre 10 59% 7 41% 9 50% 9 50% 11 46% 13 54% 16 47% 18 53% 28 51% 27 49%

Estates & Facilities 1 100% 0%

External Relations 1 100% 0% 2 100% 0% 1 33% 2 67% 1 50% 1 50% 1 33% 2 67%

Graduate School 2 67% 1 33% 1 50% 1 50% 0% 1 100% 1 50% 1 50% 2 67% 1 33%

Human Resources 1 100% 0%

IT 0% 2 100% 0% 2 100% 2 29% 5 71% 0% 1 100%

KCL Enterprises 10 91% 1 9% 1 100% 0%

Principal's Office 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 100% 0% 1 50% 1 50%

Research Management &

Innovation 2 100% 0% 10 100% 0% 10 100% 0% 6 100% 0% 6 100% 0%

Students & Education 9 50% 9 50% 9 43% 12 57% 12 52% 11 48% 14 61% 9 39% 9 53% 8 47%

Grand Total 2179 51% 2100 49% 2312 50% 2290 50% 2537 51% 2480 49% 2750 50% 2704 50% 2883 51% 2769 49%

Female Male

2010-11 2011-12

Female Male

2012-13

Female Male

2013-14 2014-15


19

19

Figure 2.10: PS staff in STEMM, AHSSBL and CS Departments

PS staff are 60% female with lower percentages (due to the numbers of male technical staff) in STEMM faculties; NMS have increased the percentage of female PS using targeted AS actions.

TOTAL WORDS SECTION TWO = 349

Faculty no % no % no % no % no % no % no % no % no % no %

AHSSBL

Faculty of Arts &

Humanities 64 69% 29 31% 52 66% 27 34% 71 70% 31 30% 89 74% 31 26% 92 79% 25 21%

Faculty of Social Science &

Public Policy 75 74% 26 26% 69 74% 24 26% 81 69% 36 31% 85 73% 32 27% 92 71% 37 29%

The Dickson Poon School of

Law 15 83% 3 17% 15 79% 4 21% 18 75% 6 25% 19 70% 8 30% 18 64% 10 36%

STEMM


Faculty of Life Sciences &

Medicine 349 67% 173 33% 338 69% 154 31% 365 68% 175 32% 384 69% 173 31% 408 68% 189 32%


Mathematical Sciences 21 43% 28 57% 26 48% 28 52% 30 51% 29 49% 31 48% 33 52% 35 55% 29 45%

Florence Nightingale

Faculty of Nursing &

Midwifery 32 68% 15 32% 37 70% 16 30% 46 68% 22 32% 48 79% 13 21% 44 77% 13 23%

Health School Services 84 58% 60 42% 99 62% 61 38% 103 60% 69 40% 134 64% 74 36% 75 59% 53 41%


Psychology & Neuroscience 291 77% 89 23% 295 74% 103 26% 310 76% 99 24% 285 77% 85 23% 289 75% 98 25%

Central

Centre for Technology

Enhanced Learning 2 67% 1 33% 3 60% 2 40% 3 43% 4 57% 5 56% 4 44%

Culture at King's 3 60% 2 40% 11 65% 6 35% 12 71% 5 29% 18 78% 5 22%

Dean's Office & Chaplaincy 4 80% 1 20% 4 80% 1 20% 3 75% 1 25% 3 75% 1 25% 4 80% 1 20%

English Language Centre 7 54% 6 46% 6 40% 9 60% 6 38% 10 63% 7 37% 12 63% 3 50% 3 50%

Estates & Facilities 155 37% 269 63% 152 38% 250 62% 118 34% 225 66% 144 38% 232 62% 164 41% 239 59%

External Relations 99 75% 33 25% 51 65% 28 35% 79 71% 32 29% 86 74% 31 26% 85 75% 28 25%

Finance & Planning 45 56% 36 44% 52 57% 40 43% 57 61% 36 39% 56 59% 39 41% 58 60% 38 40%

Fundraising & Supporter

Development 5 71% 2 29% 87 79% 23 21% 104 77% 31 23% 123 79% 33 21% 113 82% 25 18%

Graduate School 11 85% 2 15% 11 92% 1 8% 12 80% 3 20% 9 75% 3 25% 14 58% 10 42%

Human Resources 45 71% 18 29% 38 66% 20 34% 43 65% 23 35% 46 64% 26 36% 47 67% 23 33%

Internal Audit 1 25% 3 75% 0% 4 100% 0% 4 100% 0% 4 100%

IT 135 42% 185 58% 153 45% 184 55% 163 47% 187 53% 156 45% 189 55% 162 45% 198 55%

KCL Enterprises 38 63% 22 37% 17 81% 4 19%

King's Commercialisation

Institute 2 33% 4 67%

Principal's Office 16 67% 8 33% 13 68% 6 32% 12 71% 5 29% 15 75% 5 25% 21 78% 6 22%

Research Management &

Innovation 28 64% 16 36% 56 60% 37 40% 79 64% 45 36% 96 67% 48 33% 97 66% 50 34%

Strategy, Planning &

Assurance 7 47% 8 53%

Students & Education 179 68% 86 32% 154 63% 91 37% 172 64% 97 36% 161 60% 106 40% 228 61% 143 39%

Grand Total 1765 61% 1131 39% 1795 61% 1137 39% 1954 62% 1196 38% 2061 63% 1211 37% 2155 63% 1262 37%

Male Female Male Female MaleFemale Male Female Male Female

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

20

20

3. The self-assessment process


Describe the self-assessment process. This should include:

(i) a description of the self-assessment team

To avoid placing additional burdens on more junior female staff (which our research indicates often occurs to their detriment: BMJ 20161), the USAT is deliberately small, with responsibility for ensuring focused attention and swift action; members were selected for their ability to deliver rapid change at institutional level. It includes faculty and directorate representation (academic and PS leaders) and relevant members of the HR team. Ensuring the gender balance of this group was a key driver.

Making use of our effective D&I networks, there was regular two-way consultation (see 3ii below) on key issues, action-planning and prioritisation, ensuring that engagement was open and wide-ranging.

Figure 3.1: USAT Membership

Name / Position

Role on SAT Background / Experience

Baroness Sally Morgan

Member of Council

Co-Chair

- Accountable for AS progress

- Critical friend plus sharing findings & recommendations with Council

- Former Minister for Women & Equalities - Active supporter of programmes to support women in politics, business, charities and public life

Professor Ed Byrne

President & Principal

Co-Chair

- Accountable for AS progress

- Challenging USAT with ‘stretch thinking’ on actions & sharing findings with SMT

- Recognised for equality work at Monash University

- Father and grandfather - Engaged in reverse mentoring with a female BME post-doc

Professor Evelyn Welch* VP and Provost

King’s Gender Champion

- Joint Academic AS Lead (Arts & Sciences) - Project Sponsor and part of writing team

- 7+ years’ AS experience - Coaches all faculty/department AS applicants through submission

- Chairs Parenting Leave Fund Panel - Mother, stepmother and grandmother

21

21

Professor Sir Robert Lechler

VP and Provost

- Joint Academic AS Lead (Health)

- Adviser on clinical elements

- Sponsors talent management initiative and mentorship scheme - Mentor for ECRs - Father and grandfather

Professor Catherine Williamson Professor of Women’s Health

BRC Gender Champion

- University senior academic lead for Childcare Review

- Department AS lead for Women’s Health (Silver AS Award)

- Co-authored three articles on gender equality in science

Professor Graham Lord

Director of the BRC

Joint Gender Equality lead for the BRC

- Sharing NHS good practice

- Provided resource to enable FoLSM departments to submit AS applications throughout 2015

- Funded qualitative research into gender equity at King’s

Laura Clayton Director of Service Excellence

Joint Gender Equality lead for PS

- Special responsibility for Central PS

- Lead for PS Networks, bringing functional alignment and opportunities to more PS staff - Mentor on Gender Ambitions Mentoring Scheme

Richard Barnard

Director of Admin for IoPPN (Silver AS)


- Special responsibility for Faculty PS

- Diversity lead for PS staff in faculties - Actively involved in IoPPN’s Gold Athena SWAN preparation (Silver award holders)

Nick O’Donnell*

Director of Estates and Facilities


- Special responsibility for contractors

- Oversight for D&I projects in Estates, including tactile maps, gender neutral toilets and gender oriented space audit

Anna Lees

Director of Organisational Development

- Integration of D&I into OD provision and talent management

- Directs talent development at the University - Ensures D&I messages embedded into OD provision

Brent Dempster Director of HR

- HR expertise - Accountable for Central D&I function - Commissioned independent strategic

22

22

review of D&I to clarify focus and build on strengths

Jo Lawton* University Athena SWAN Project Manager

- AS expertise - Experience of maternity leave, transitioning between part and full-time work, fixed-term & open ended contracts and flexible working

Rob Butler*

Head of People, Data & Analytics

- Oversee production of data for the submission

- Responsible for staff information systems and production of data for AS

*Also represented on DISG

(ii) an account of the self-assessment process

From 2013, the USAT was chaired by the university’s Gender Champion (Welch). Progress was reported to DISG, the university’s senior body for D&I, chaired by a member of Council.

The AS Champions Network met bi-monthly to share good practice. Concerns or barriers were escalated to the USAT.

At the end of 2015 the Champions Network was extended to form the D&I Champions Network, (combining our race and gender agendas), following our successful institutional REC award, including representatives from each university department (academic and PS). This group is now too large to form an effective working SAT but has been central to our evaluation process, providing, along with local AS SATs, input and feedback on the analyses and action plans. A newly formed PS Equalities Sounding Board (which includes Faculty AS PS leads as well as the AS Project Manager) supports the new work needed for PS.

The Silver Assessment process began in late 2015 with a reconfigured USAT (as above).

There have been six USAT meetings. The chair rotates between the Principal & President, Ed Byrne, and Council member, Baroness Sally Morgan.

23

23

Figure 3.2: USAT Meetings

The USAT drew upon existing data and commissioned reports. Including:

The 2015 King’s staff survey Two Gender Pay Gap reports (2013 and 2016) Consultation and report with trans staff and students (2016) Faculty/departmental surveys as part of local AS applications (2013-16) Impact-survey with participants on gender schemes and programmes (2016) Feedback from carers at King’s (on-going)

King’s Staff survey 2015

Staff survey results have been analysed by gender (no statistically significant differences). Results were then analysed by gender and job category which revealed differences covered in the relevant sections below. Intersectional analysis were conducted, (gender and ethnicity). Overall, negative responses are more likely on the basis of ethnicity i.e. BME male/female were more likely to declare negative experiences. Negative responses were highest amongst BME women. (Figure 3.3 includes survey participation rates).

Throughout 2016, we ran focus groups with BME academic and research staff to inform future career support; no gendered differences emerged. BME support is now embedded within relevant AS actions.

Figure 3.4 below provides a summary of the full consultation undertaken.

February 2016

• Objective setting

• Devised framework for addressing PS D&I challenges

April 2016

• Discussion of:

• PS staff profile trends

• AHSSBL staff profile trends

• Gender space audit

•Discussion of supportive actions

June 2016

•Discussion of:

• Equal pay review findings/next steps

• Academic staff profile trends

• Findings from the 2014/15 R&S analysis

September 2016

•Discussion of:

•Draft submission

•Findings from consultation with trans staff and students

October 2016

• Action planning phase one

November 2016

• Action planning/sign-off

24

24

Figure 3.3: Staff survey participation rates

Academic/ Research Professional Services


Staff numbers

1070 1066 1237 732

Participation numbers

2883 2769 2155 1262

Completion rates

37% 38% 57% 58%

Action 1.1: Continue analysing staff survey responses by the intersection of gender and race and use focus groups to test findings.

Action 1.2: Develop the staff survey analysis tool to enable future intersectional responses to be analysed by job category (PS, research, academic).

Action 1.3: Develop future REC surveys to collect responses by gender.

25

25

Figure 3.4: An overview of AS Silver consultation activities

*Includes: D&I Champions, Deans and Heads of Directorate, KDC (our staff network; merger of former women’s and BME networks), Researchers’ Network, PS Managers, Parent Buddy Scheme members, LGBT+ Network, Trades Unions, KCLSU.

Consultation

Internal peer review for quality assurance (FoLSM mock AS panel convened)

Professional Services Sounding Board members, Experienced AS

departmental SAT leads and wider dedicated AS/ D&I

colleagues invited to:

* confirm whether key trends/issues identified reflect concerns at faculty/directorate-

level

•identify actions being taken to address these locally & any

demonstrable impact of these

•propose priority university-level actions

Key networks & stakeholders* for all members

to:

* view and comment on draft application /actions

•To propose additional actions

Diversity & Inclusion Steering Group (DISG) for members to:

*view and comment on draft application / action plan

•propose additional stretch-actions

SLT/SET for all members to:

•view and comment on draft application . action plan

•propose additional stretch actions

Campus-based consultation events

For sall staff to:

*vote and comment on action plan

•comment on draft application

•propose additional stretch actions

• Participaton: 82%F, 18% M

University-wide online consultation for staff to:

* view draft submision

* vote and comment on proposed actions

*propose additional stretch actions

•Participation: 78% F, 11% M, 6% other 6% prefer not to say.

Action owners to:

* review and agree actions, timescales and measures of

success

Faculty D&I staff & Head of Researcher Development to:

*provide detailed advice & feedback on application and action plan

External peer review of appliction / action plan by

Rob Bell, AS PS lead at Imperial (Post-May 15

institutional Silver award-holders)

26

26

(iii) plans for the future of the self-assessment team

While the USAT will continue to be co-chaired by the Principal and member of Council, it will now become a monitoring body and will extend its membership; it will meet on a termly basis and will report to and coordinate activities with the DISG to ensure intersectional issues are fully addressed. The USAT agenda will include reports from the D&I Champions Network and faculty D&I Committees/SATs to monitor progress/challenges locally.

Action 2.1: Extend USAT membership to include representation of staff from all job categories, to include early and mid-career staff, 50:50 of whom will be men: women and greater than 30% of whom will be BME.

Action 2.2: Rotate membership of USAT every two years to ensure distribution of workloads.

Action 2.3: Introduce a system of deputies’ mid-way in year 2 to aid succession planning.

Action 2.4: Communicate key AS developments to all staff through established channels, on a termly basis (see AP for further details).

Action 3.1-3.6: Ensure all staff are updated on key AS developments throughout the year.

Action 4.1: Explore the viability of an internal AS/D&I application process (building on the

SFA checklist) to ensure CS departments remain engaged with AS and receive internal

recognition for progress.

The figure below provides an overview of the infrastructure in place to support this on-going work.

Figure 3.5: Infrastructure in place for future AS activity

Action 4.2: Develop more user-friendly AS data templates and analytics for departments, building-in robust data quality checks before any data is released.

TOTAL WORD SECTION THREE = 568

27

27

4. A picture of the institution


An account of activity to date in relation to the issues below is provided in section 5.

4.1 Academic and research staff data

(i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender

Figure 4.1: Total number of Academic and Research staff at King’s by gender, 2010/11-2014/15

The university-level gender balance is stable (figure 4.1).

28

Figure 4.2: King’s Academic and Research staff disaggregated by grade and gender, 2010/11-2014/15

Gender balance for Teachers and Lecturers has moved towards parity. Researchers remain female dominated (60%) while women are still under-represented amongst SLs and Professors. There is visible progress for female Readers, from 32% to 38%. The dip from 41% female Readers shows the movement of Readers into Professorial grades (figure 4.2).

29

We want to understand variations amongst other groups of staff, in particular Researchers, Teachers and Clinicians.

Researchers

There is significant variance within this group of staff, as demonstrated in the figure below. For the purpose of this analysis, all groups have been aggregated. The term Senior Researcher denotes Research Fellows and above.

Figure 4.3: Job roles within the Research category

Category Remuneration Band

Research Assistants Grade 5

Research Associates Covers Grade 6 (Typically Postdoctoral Researchers)

Research Fellows Grade 7

Senior Research Fellows Grade 8

Principal Research Fellows Professorial grade

Figure 4.4: Disaggregation of Researcher category by gender

Research Assistants Research Associates Senior Researchers Grand Total

Year F % M % F % M % F % M %

10-11 362 72% 140 28% 512 59% 357 41% 217 54% 184 46% 1772

11-12 375 71% 150 29% 523 60% 354 40% 220 53% 192 47% 1814

12-13 393 71% 159 29% 531 56% 425 44% 237 54% 199 46% 1944

13-14 397 74% 137 26% 612 56% 477 44% 234 54% 203 46% 2060

14-15 410 74% 142 26% 681 57% 508 43% 230 51% 220 49% 2191

Women are generally in lower grade roles, with gender parity at Senior Researcher level (figure 4.4).

Teaching Staff

The Teachers category, includes TFs and Sessional Teachers, the latter including GTAs, evening class teachers and industry experts teaching on vocational programmes. We cannot identify sessional teachers on our system in a way which would help us fully understand their experience.

Action 14.2: Develop HRMS to consistently capture data on teaching staff (by role category) to facilitate more comprehensive data analysis.

30

Figure 4.5: Job roles within the Teacher category

Category Typical Remuneration Band

Sessional Teachers without a PhD (inc. GTAs) Grades 5

Sessional Teachers with a PhD Grades 6

Teaching Fellows Grades 6-8

Clinical staff

Clinical and non-clinical staff are aggregated throughout this submission except where we examine the career trajectory of clinical academics.

Figure 4.6: Proportion of clinical and non-clinical contracts held by men and women (Junior roles - Teachers, Researchers and Lecturers)

Teacher Researcher Lecturer

Clinical Non-clinical Clinical Non-clinical Clinical Non-clinical

% # % # % # % # % # % #

2010-11

Female 56% 19 59% 351 51% 61 63% 1068 39% 79 51% 261

Male 44% 15 41% 248 49% 58 37% 640 61% 125 49% 248

2011-12

Female 42% 74 57% 490 51% 65 62% 1084 34% 31 48% 248

Male 58% 101 43% 375 49% 63 38% 664 66% 61 52% 267

2012-13

Female 40% 83 58% 589 51% 99 60% 1098 45% 26 51% 269

Male 60% 123 42% 433 49% 96 40% 721 55% 32 49% 261

2013-14

Female 41% 92 55% 629 54% 107 61% 1188 44% 28 53% 319

Male 59% 130 45% 523 46% 92 39% 773 56% 35 47% 286

2014-15

Female 42% 94 55% 675 52% 97 61% 1294 50% 33 53% 297

Male 58% 132 45% 548 48% 91 39% 824 50% 33 47% 261

Women are less well represented in clinical roles than non-clinical roles. Although in recent years we have moved towards a gender balance

across all roles (figure 4.6).

Figure 11: Proportion of clinical and non-clinical contracts held by men and women (Senior roles - Senior Lecturers, Readers, Professors)

Senior Lecturer Reader Professor Total

Clinical Non-clinical Clinical Non-clinical Clinical Non-clinical Clinical Non-clinical

% # % # % # % # % # % # % # % #

2010-11

Female 36% 45 40% 130 30% 7 32% 36 21% 27 24% 95 38% 238 53% 1941

Male 64% 80 60% 191 70% 16 68% 77 79% 102 76% 300 62% 396 47% 1704

2011-12

Female 34% 29 36% 110 60% 9 33% 36 21% 28 25% 108 37% 236 52% 2076

Male 66% 57 64% 194 40% 6 67% 74 79% 108 75% 320 63% 396 48% 1894

2012-13

Female 34% 28 38% 118 52% 12 39% 53 21% 31 27% 131 39% 279 52% 2258

Male 66% 54 62% 190 48% 11 61% 82 79% 118 73% 359 61% 434 48% 2046

2013-14

Female 38% 36 37% 117 57% 13 39% 60 19% 29 26% 132 41% 305 52% 2445

Male 62% 58 63% 200 43% 10 61% 93 81% 121 74% 383 59% 446 48% 2258

2014-15

Female 36% 32 38% 126 57% 13 36% 56 18% 26 26% 140 40% 295 53% 2588

Male 64% 58 62% 202 43% 10 64% 101 82% 120 74% 389 60% 444 47% 2325

Figure 4.7: Proportion of clinical and non-clinical contracts held by men and women (Senior roles - Senior Lecturers, Readers, Professors)

Women are equally represented in Clinical and Non-Clinical roles with the exception of Readers (Clinical 57%F, Non-Clinical 36%F), with the reverse being true of Professors (Clinical 18%F, Non-Clinical 26%F). Pipeline issues are evident in clinical and non-clinical roles, however the clinical route comes close to gender balance for Readers (figure 4.7).

Senior Lecturer Reader Professor Total

Clinical Non-clinical Clinical Non-clinical Clinical Non-clinical Clinical Non-clinical

% # % # % # % # % # % # % # % #

2010-11

Female 36% 45 40% 130 30% 7 32% 36 21% 27 24% 95 38% 238 53% 1941

Male 64% 80 60% 191 70% 16 68% 77 79% 102 76% 300 62% 396 47% 1704

2011-12

Female 34% 29 36% 110 60% 9 33% 36 21% 28 25% 108 37% 236 52% 2076

Male 66% 57 64% 194 40% 6 67% 74 79% 108 75% 320 63% 396 48% 1894

2012-13

Female 34% 28 38% 118 52% 12 39% 53 21% 31 27% 131 39% 279 52% 2258

Male 66% 54 62% 190 48% 11 61% 82 79% 118 73% 359 61% 434 48% 2046

2013-14

Female 38% 36 37% 117 57% 13 39% 60 19% 29 26% 132 41% 305 52% 2445

Male 62% 58 63% 200 43% 10 61% 93 81% 121 74% 383 59% 446 48% 2258

2014-15

Female 36% 32 38% 126 57% 13 36% 56 18% 26 26% 140 40% 295 53% 2588

Male 64% 58 62% 202 43% 10 64% 101 82% 120 74% 389 60% 444 47% 2325

Figure 4.8: Academic & Research staff by grade in STEMM departments 2010/11-2014/15

Figure 4.9: Academic & Research staff by grade in AHSSBL departments 2010/11-2014/15

AS activities in STEMM areas have led to improvements at Reader level (34%F, 2010/11 to 42%F, 2014/15), creating a future pool for progression to Professor. Transition from Researcher to Lecturer, Lecturer to SL, and from Reader to Professor remain areas of concern (figure 4.8).

For AHSSBL, Researcher and Lecturer posts are at gender parity, indicating actions should focus on SL and above. From 2010/11, the proportion of women Lecturers is similar to Researcher, quite a different picture to STEMM. The numbers of Teachers has increased dramatically over the timeframe and is moving slowly towards parity, indicating the attractiveness of the role to both genders. Compared to STEMM, there has been no pipeline improvements over time, reflecting more recent engagement with AS (figure 4.9).

Intersectional career pipeline Figure 4.10: Female Academic & Research staff by ethnicity

Around 20% of our female Teachers and Researchers are BME. This proportion decreases with increasing seniority to approximately 10% for Reader and Professor.

Figure 4.11: Male Academic & Research staff by ethnicity

Male BME staff show a similar attrition to female staff, although represented in slightly higher proportions at each grade. 20% of male Teachers and Researchers are BME, declining to 12% at Professor. We are introducing targeted career support and mentoring for BME staff.

Figure 4.12: Academic & Research staff by contract mode

The use of part-time contracts for men and women is higher in AHSSBL than in STEMM. Women are more likely to work part-time across both areas. In AHSSBL, part-time contracts are typical for teaching roles, as shown below.

Figure 4.13: Academic & Research staff by contract mode and contract function

41

(ii) Academic and research staff on fixed-term, open-ended/permanent and zero-hour contracts

by gender

King’s uses FTC for externally funded posts, to cover maternity, sabbatical, longer absence or short-term specialist teaching. Overall, we have a high proportion of staff on FTC due to successful research funding bids. King’s does not use zero-hour contracts. (39)

Figure 4.14: Academic and Research staff - contract terms by gender

FTC and open-ended contracts by gender have been stable over five years. Proportionally more women were on FTCs due to the high proportion of female Researchers, especially in STEMM.

42

Figure 4.15: Academic and Research staff - gender by contract terms

The use of FTCs has increased over time for men and women. In 2014/15, 72% of the contracts held by women were FTC.

Sessional teachers represent 63% of all Teachers (62%F, 64%M). The analysis below excludes these staff to identify their influence on our overall profile.

43

Figure 4.16: Academic and Research staff by contract terms (sessional teachers excluded)

This analysis demonstrates that the sessional teachers are not influencing our conclusions

and it is our grant-funded Researchers who create the gender imbalance.

44

Figure 4.17: Academic and Research staff by contract term, gender and grade 2014/15 (sessional teachers excluded)

Open-ended contracts are more common at senior levels and FTC in more junior roles, this ratio mirrors the distribution of men and women on each grade.

Redeployment policy

King’s redeployment policy aims to provide security of employment whenever possible. As a FTC expires, line manager and staff member consider suitable alternative roles. Where person specification criteria are met, the staff member will be offered an interview. Panels are expected to consider whether they might meet the criteria should training be provided. Staff are also directed to our Employee Assistance Programme, which provides independent counselling.

Action 5: Develop a more formalised redeployment process for research staff with transferable skills as a matter of good practice

45

(iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research-only, research and teaching, and

teaching-only

Figure 4.18: Academic & Research staff by contract employment function and gender

Men make up a greater proportion of those on teaching and research contracts and women comprise a higher proportion of those on teaching only or research only contracts, as Research and Teaching roles tend to be female dominated.

46

Figure 4.19: Female Academic & Research staff by contract function

Figure 4.20: Male Academic & Research staff by contract function

47

An analysis of gender by contract function (figures 4.19 and 4.20) shows the predominance of research only contracts among women and Teaching and Research contracts (although slightly declining) amongst men.

Figure 4.21: Benchmark data: teaching & research, research only and teaching only contracts

Compared to Silver peers, our female Teaching and Research staff are well represented. Our female Research only proportions are higher than for National and Silver.

48

Figure 4.22: Benchmark data: Professors by gender

King’s and UCL (both employ 24% female Professors) are just ahead of the Silver benchmark and the National average (23%). This reflects King’s mixture of STEMM and AHSSBL subjects, as well as improved promotion application and success rates (see section 5.1iii).

49

(iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender

Figure 4.23: Academic & Research leavers by leaving reason and gender

Other reasons include: not known, mutually agreed contract termination, deceased and other reasons.

Expiry of FTC followed by resignation are the main reasons for men and women leaving. Leavers in 2010/11 had a different profile, as there were redundancies, and the other reasons category declined in use after this point due to better recording. In 2014/15, a restructuring exercise took place in the Health Faculties, including a thorough EIA, the resulting redundancies, based on productivity criteria, had a greater impact on men.

50

Figure 4.24: STEMM leavers by leaving reason and gender

In STEMM, the main reason for leaving was expiry of FTC or resignation. Redundancies were usually low (none in 2012/13) and as mentioned above those in 2014/15 largely impacted on men.

51

Figure 4.25: AHSSBL leavers by leaving reason and gender

Similar to STEMM, expiry of FTC is the dominant reason for departure. Further analysis (not-shown) indicates GTAs have high turnover as these are PhD students on a FTC. Retirements are lower than in STEMM, and trends are not consistently gendered. There were some male redundancies in 2014/15 in line with university changes.

52

Figure 4.26: STEMM leavers by leaving reason, grade and gender for 2012/13 to 2014/15

As numbers of leavers are small, three years of data have been combined. Percentages are used to protect anonymity. As expected, for STEMM, we see Researchers accounting for more than two-thirds of male and female leavers. More senior grades see far fewer leavers.

53

Figure 4.27: AHSSBL leavers by leaving reason, grade and gender for 2012/13 to 2014/15

The majority of leavers from AHSSBL are Teachers on FTC. Teachers account for more than half of all men and women leaving each year. 4% of all male and female leavers are Lecturers resigning.

54

54

Exit survey data

Since its inception in May 2014, 8.8% of male and 11.9% of female leavers who were Researchers used our online exit survey (47 men/100 women). 54 Academics, (27 men and 27 women) participated. Summary responses are below.

Figure 4.28: Academic & Researcher exit survey responses by gender: reasons for leaving

Academic Researcher

Reasons for leaving Female %

Male % Female

% Male %

Seeking an environment with more opportunities for career progression / job prospects 52 41 50 43

Management of College/Faculty/Division/Area 37 26 11 21

Job content 33 37 23 13

Desired a role where I can make better use of my skills and abilities 30 33 36 28

Seeking better working conditions/environment 30 26 29 13

To improve my pay and/or benefits 30 26 14 26

Location of workplace 22 22 24 17

To improve my job security 22 30 31 34

Long working hours 22 26 10 6

Too much pressure 19 22 10 6

Little or no feedback on my performance 11 15 12 6

poor relationship with manager/supervisor 7 19 20 9

Work colleagues 4 11 11 2

Seeking different working hours (e.g. currently part-time and want to work full-time) 4 0 2 4

More opportunities to work flexibly 0 11 6 0

55

55

Female Academics were more likely to state seeking an environment with more opportunity for progression/job prospects as their reason for leaving. They were also more likely to leave due to management of College / Faculty / Division compared with men, potentially signalling issues with our management culture.

This pattern was reversed for Researchers, where men were more likely to leave due to management.

Considering the small numbers, it’s difficult to draw firm conclusions, but we are concerned over the prevalence of management as a reason for leaving and will investigate further.

As well as surveying leavers, we analysed responses to the Staff Survey for attitudes towards the working environment. Responses showed no gender/job type differences.

Figure 4.29: King’s staff survey results relating to retention

% agreeing Teachers Researchers Academics

Male Female Male Female Male Female

King’s is a good place to work

84%

77% 81% 87% 73% 70%

I am actively seeking to leave employment at King’s

21% 17% 23% 20% 20% 19%

Action 6.1: Analyse historic exit survey data further to explore the qualitative statements left by staff citing ‘management of College/Faculty/Division’ to determine whether these offer more useful insights on which to develop more specific actions.

Action 6.2: Continue to analyse exit survey data biannually and begin to conduct intersectional analysis; develop actions to newly emerging trends as appropriate.

Action 6.3: Consider how faculties will flag any issues of concern in the interim periods.

Action 6.4: SATS to continue to foster engagement with online exit survey.

56

56

(v) Equal pay audits/reviews

King’s has a Gender Pay Gap of 20.4% in base pay. This has not reduced since our last analysis in 2012/13. While the GPG for academic staff up to Reader level is small (3.4%) and substantial progress has been made in relation to the GPG for clinical psychologists, we have seen a sizeable increase in the GPG for Senior PS staff, following new external senior male hires. Figure 4.30: Comparison of GPG data 2012 and 2016

GPG Proportion of women in staff group

Trend in workforce profile for women

Staff group 2012 2016 2012 2016 2016

All staff 20.4% 20.4% 54% 55% Majority and static

Clinical Psychologists 8.0% 2.1% 64% 64% Majority and static

Clinical 14.2% 14.7% 37% 39% Minority but increasing

Academic (G1-8) n/a 3.4% n/a 53% Majority

Research (G1-8) n/a 6.4% n/a 61% Majority

Professional services (G1-8)

n/a 6.1% n/a 63% Majority

Snr. Professional services

2.7% 9.4% 39% 40% Minority but increasing

Professors 7.0% 8.2% 25% 29% Minority but increasing

The most influential factors leading to the GPG continue to be the under representation of women in higher salaried roles e.g. professorial, clinical, and senior PS and the over representation of women in lower salaried roles e.g. junior PS, research, and academic roles (figure 4.31).

57

57

Figure 4.31: Distribution of employees across salary quartiles - 2016

Equal pay audits reveal no evidence of pay inequality for Academic, Research or PS staff on the university single pay spine. Internal promotions to Professor have clear guidance on starting salaries. For external appointments, there is freedom for both candidate and King’s to negotiate.

Quartile Salary range Equivalent KCL Grades

Quartile 1 £0 - £30,738 Up to Grade 4/5

Quartile 2 £30,739 - £38,896 Grade 5/6

Quartile 3 £38,897 - £50,702 Grade 6/7

Quartile 4 Over £50,702 Grade 8 and above

58

58

Figure 4.32: Professorial GPG by faculty

Professorial GPG – by faculty Gender Pay Gap Proportion of Professors that are women

2012 2016 2012 2016

Dental Institute -1.3% 24.0% 50% 43%

Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine

11.4% 12.4% 29% 30%

Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery

-29.5% -17.7% 77% 80%

Arts & Humanities 1.4% 4.8% 22% 32%

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience

7.9% 6.4% 25% 37%

Natural & Mathematical Sciences

15.9% 3.6% 9% 14%

Social Science & Public Policy 6.7% 7.3% 23% 22%

The Dickson Poon School of Law 8.2% 16.6% 30% 26%

‘ – ‘ Indicates a GPC that adversely impacts on men

Highlighted cells show a change in the GPG > 10% in 4 years.

The GPG has widened for women in DI (22.7%) and Law (8.4%) due to external male professorial hires. In FNFNM (where men experience the adverse gap) and NMS (where this is true for women), there has been a visible decrease in the GPG due to targeted recruitment and promotion of senior men and women.

Actions: Increasing the proportion of women in senior roles, including a review of R&S practices especially at senior levels, supporting progression via promotion and the provision of support for staff with caring responsibilities to facilitate retention/ progression (see Section 5 of relevant actions).

Actions 7a – Further detailed analysis of faculty Professorial GPGs, and additional and bonus payments.

Actions 7b: Provision of support to Deans and Directors to achieve their KPIs; ensure robust

inclusive pay strategies are in place in preparation for recruitment to the new Business and

59

59

Engineering departments; develop salary negotiation guidelines and ensure all areas of the university have formal mechanisms for considering the allocation of discretionary pay awards at all levels.

Actions 7c: Provide staff with transparent pay information including details on how pay is determined, visibility of pay awards outcomes by gender (anonymised), and hold staff fora events to explore pay.

Relevant Staff Survey responses show few gender differences. Teachers agree least with the statement about being fairly paid. This year, career progression routes for Teachers were developed (with the creation of Senior and Principal TFs).

Table 4.33: King’s staff survey results relating to pay and benefits - % agreeing

PS Teachers Researchers Academics

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

I feel fairly paid for the work I do

55% 57% 44% 41% 65% 66% 51% 48%

I feel fairly paid in relation to other staff at King’s doing a similar job

62% 60% 57% 55% 78% 75% 61% 53%

Overall, I feel King’s offers a good pay and benefits package

57% 60% 45% 39% 63% 69% 47% 46%

Meet the Professors

60

60

4.2 Professional and Support Staff data

(i) Professional and support staff by grade and gender

PS staff are grouped into AHSSBL and STEMM faculties and CS directorates. The analysis excludes agency staff. Grade 1-8 PS staff are subject to standardised job grading and progress along a single pay spine. Senior PS staff (ALC6) are on contracts with individually agreed terms. At present it is not possible to separately analyse Technical staff who are grouped under PS.

Figure 4.34: PS staff by gender

There has been a stable gender balance for PS staff.

61

61

Figure 4.35: Benchmarking data: PS staff by Gender

Compared to the National and Silver benchmarks, we have a similar proportion of women working in PS.

62

Figure 4.36: PS staff in CS, STEMM and AHSBBL departments

63

63

A lower proportion of women work in CS compared to AHSSBL and STEMM. In STEMM and AHSSBL the situation has been static. The proportion of women in CS has increased from 53% to 57%.

Figure 4.37: PS staff by grade and gender - CS Directorates 2014/15

The proportion of men is highest at Grade 2 and then increases again from Grade 6 and above. The proportion of women peaks at Grade 5 (65%F) and declines to 37% (ALC6).

64

64

Figure 4.38: PS staff by grade and gender- STEMM and AHSSBL Directorates 2014/15

Small numbers make trends are difficult to identify. However there is a definite decline in female proportions at ALC6. Nonetheless, women are better represented at senior levels, (Grades 5-8), in AHSSBL and STEMM than in CS, despite CS having the greatest proportion of women at the start of the pipeline. AHSSBL has the best career trajectory for women.

Figure 4.39: PS staff by grade, gender and ethnicity - CS Directorates, 2014/15

65

65

The proportion of BME staff reduces for both men and women at each grade beyond Grade 2. This is particularly evident from Grade 5 upwards. White men are underrepresented in Grade 5, but become the majority at Grade 8 and ALC6.

Figure 4.40: PS staff by grade, gender and ethnicity - STEMM Directorates, 2014/15

In STEMM, there is a similar pattern. White women are overrepresented in Grade 3–5. At Grade 6, the proportion of BME women reduces. There are very few BME men in these roles.

Figure 4.41: PS staff by grade, gender and ethnicity - AHSSBL Directorates, 2014/15

In AHSSBL, the proportion of male BME staff is low. BME women are predominantly in Grades 3-5, and the proportion goes to zero from Grade 8. Women hold the majority of posts in Grades 3-8.

There were no BME PS staff working in senior roles in either STEMM, AHSSBL in 2014/15 and our targeted work with BME women is designed to address this.

Actions: see sections 5.2ii and 5.4.iii, in relation to career progression, 5.1i relating to R&S and 5.6i and 5.6x relating to culture.

66

(ii) Professional and support staff on fixed-term, open-ended/permanent and zero-hour contracts by gender

Within each gender, the proportion of open-ended (regular) and FTC are steady. However, women comprise a greater proportion of those on FTC (71%F and 29%M), figure 4.42. This is reinforced in the figure below where 31% of women and 21% of men are not FTC (figure 4.43). Figure 4.42: PS staff by contract terms and gender

67

Figure 4.43: PS staff by gender and contract terms

68

Figure 4.44: PS staff by contract terms – CS Directorates

In CS directorates, the use of FTCs is much lower, with no discernible differences between male and female staff.

69

Figure 4.45: PS staff by contract terms – STEMM Faculties

FTCs are used far more frequently in STEMM, with disparities between men and women linked to the employment of Technical staff. Half of

the women employed are on FTC, while for men it’s 36%.

70

Figure 4.46: PS staff by contract terms – AHSSBL Faculties

Compared to STEMM, AHSSBL has proportionally more open-ended PS staff contracts. Numbers are smaller, but women tend to be slightly

more likely to hold an open-ended contract.

71

Figure 4.47: Benchmarking data: PS Staff by contract terms

By gender King’s has similar proportions staff on open-ended contracts as the Silver, Russell group and National benchmarks. By comparison, it has a higher proportion of women/lower proportion of men on FTC (King’s 71%F, National, 64%F and Silver peers, 64%F).

King’s redeployment policy includes PS staff (described in section 4.1ii).

Actions taken to date to respond to these issues and support for BME and female staff are listed in section 5 and include mentorship, the KDC network and strengthening the PDR process.

60%

62%

61%

63%

60%

63%

63%

64%

60%

54%

59%

59%

63%

40%

38%

39%

37%

40%

37%

37%

36%

40%

46%

41%

41%

37%

64%

64%

65%

67%

62%

60%

65%

66%

71%

63%

64%

65%

60%

36%

36%

35%

33%

38%

40%

35%

34%

29%

37%

36%

35%

40%

Silver average

National

Russell Group

The University of Warwick

University College London

The University of Sheffield

University of Nottingham

University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

King's College London

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

The University of Edinburgh

The University of Cambridge

The Queen's University of Belfast

Permanent contract Female Permanent contract Male Fixed-term contract Female Fixed-term contract Male

72

Action 8: Investigate whether the higher proportion of on FTCs is because men are more likely to move from fixed-term to open-

ended contracts or if men are more likely to be placed on an open-ended contract in the first place, and develop appropriate

response strategies/actions as necessary.

Figure 4.48: PS staff by contract mode and gender

There are proportionally more women on part-time contracts than men.

73

Figure 4.49: PS staff by contract mode and area

Across all areas, proportionally more women are on part-time contracts. In STEMM this is pronounced; CS follows a similar pattern. In AHSSBL,

there’s been a slight decrease in women on part-time contracts (36% to 23%) and an increase in men on part-time contracts (19% to 28%).

74

(iii) Professional and support staff leavers by grade and gender

Figure 4.50: PS leavers by leaving reason and year – CS Directorates

Proportionally more women resign than their male counterparts each year. Expiry of FTC affects both men and women, and the prevalence changes over time. Retirements and redundancy are consistently more common for men.

75

Figure 4.51: PS leavers by leaving reason and year – STEMM Faculties

In STEMM, resignation of PS staff is the main leaving reason, followed by expiry of FTC. There are no discernible trends, as numbers are small.

76

Figure 4.52: PS leavers by leaving reason and year – AHSSBL Faculties

There was a peak of resignations in 2013/14, particularly affecting male staff. Unlike STEMM, women have been affected by redundancy in AHSSBL, with 11 women being made redundant compared to one man over this period. Generally, there are more women leavers and more leavers in CS and STEMM than AHSSBL.

77

77

Exit survey data Since its inception, 10.2% of male and 13.1% female PS leavers have engaged with the online exit survey (64 men/151 women). Results show the predominant reasons for leaving are similar for both genders. However, men were more driven by pay and benefits elsewhere, and moving to roles which would use more of their skills and abilities.

Figure 4.53: PS staff exit survey responses

Reason for leaving Female %

Male %

Seeking an environment with more opportunities for career progression / job prospects 51 50

Desired a role where I can make better use of my skills and abilities 43 61

Job content 42 41

To improve my pay and/or benefits 36 55

Seeking better working conditions/environment 27 31

Management of College/Faculty/Division/Area 22 28

Location of workplace 17 22

Too much pressure 15 11

More opportunities to work flexibly 11 9

poor relationship with manager/supervisor 10 13

To improve my job security 9 9

Little or no feedback on my performance 9 8

Long working hours 8 2

Seeking different working hours (e.g. currently part-time and want to work full-time) 8 3

Work colleagues 7 8

78

78

Staff survey responses demonstrate that men have a slightly less favourable perception of King’s and are more likely to be seeking to leave than women.

Figure 4.54: King’s staff survey results relating to retention - % agreeing

PS Staff survey responses Male % Female %

King’s is a good place to work 85 89

I am actively seeking to leave employment at King’s 25 19

Action 6.2: Continue to analyse exit survey data biannually and begin to conduct intersectional analysis; develop response actions to newly emerging trends as

appropriate.

Action 6.4: SATS to continue to foster engagement with online exit survey.

Action 6.5: Faculties and Directorates to foster engagement with surveys through SFA.

WORD COUNT SECTION FOUR =2144

Meet the Professors

79

79

5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers

Recommended word count: Silver 6500 words

5.1 KEY CAREER TRANSITION POINTS: ACADEMIC STAFF

(i) Recruitment

We only have robust data for application to appointment for 2014-15. This is due to challenges with our central HR database, which are being resolved.1

The data shows that:

Women are short-listed and appointed in slightly higher proportions compared with

men up to SL level; coupled with improved outcomes via our internal promotions, there is potential to shift the proportions at Reader and Professor levels (figure 5.1).

For Professors the proportion of women appointed drops dramatically (figure 5.2).

Data for straight-to-contract campaigns (typically used to move temporary staff to

open-ended contracts, or for named researchers on grants) is provided separately (figure 5.4). Numbers are small but at Teacher, Lecturer and SL levels, this approach seems to favour men more than the regular recruitment process.

The staff survey reveals that women Academic and Research staff have less confidence in the fairness of the recruitment process than men. Female Academics have lower levels of confidence than female Teachers and Researchers (figure 5.5).

Figure 5.1: Academic & Research applications, shortlisted and appointed staff by gender

1Data held locally and analysed for faculty AS awards, confirm these trends. The data includes records

for open recruitment to Academic and Research posts, where gender information was available for

each stage of the process.

Applicants Shortlisted Appointed

Grades Male Female Male Female Male Female

Professor 67% 33% 57% 43% 82% 18%

182 91 16 12 9 2

Reader 86% 14% 100% 0% 100% 0%

6 1 2 0 2 0

Senior Lecturer 66% 34% 60% 40% 50% 50%

536 279 46 31 9 9

Lecturer 62% 38% 61% 39% 48% 52%

1434 878 113 72 20 22

Researcher 38% 62% 41% 59% 40% 60%

3370 5536 374 529 154 234

Teacher 47% 53% 41% 59% 38% 62%

138 158 15 22 5 8

Total 45% 55% 46% 54% 42% 58%

5666 6943 566 666 199 275

80

80

Figure 5.2: Female Academic & Researcher recruitment, 2014/15

Figure 5.3: Male Academic & Researcher recruitment, 2014/15

81

81

Figure 5.4: Straight to contract appointments by gender for 2013/14 and 2014/15

Teacher Researcher Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor

Female 1 20% 51 63% 3 43% 1 17% 0 1 17%

Male 4 80% 30 37% 4 57% 5 83% 0 5 83%

Figure 5.5: King’s staff survey results relating to recruitment - % agreeing

Teachers Researchers Academics


King's acts fairly regardless of

ethnic background, gender,

pregnancy/ maternity with

regard to recruitment

92% 91% 92% 90% 92 % 83%

We took action to ensure we have fair appointment processes:

Gender Bulletin published good practice on attracting highly-qualified female

applicants, 2014/15

Introduction of specific positive action statements pertaining to women and BME staff in hiring packs, September 2016

Revised messaging for our annual recruitment

drive from Top in your field? Join King's (2014-15), to the more inclusive message Make a difference – join King's (2015-16).

Redesigned candidate and panel member R&S packs to include more diverse imagery, September 2016.

For interviews, a checklist is now used by managers to ensure:

All panel chairs and members have unconscious bias training

All panels must be large enough to minimise bias

Panels should include gender balance and BME representation

Straight-to-contract appointments have to be justified

We can see the difference that this is starting to make. The 2015-16 recruitment campaign

resulted in an 8% increase in female applicants to Law and the appointment of a female Professor, Reader and Lecturer. We have moved from 10% gender-balanced panels in

82

82

2013/14 to 70% in 2014/15 and are continuing this upwards trend. A weak correlation between the prevalence of balanced panels and the proportion of women appointed has been identified. To avoid ‘panel fatigue’ faculties invite colleagues from across and outside the university and we are piloting a system of including student/postdoctoral representatives on panels.

Action 9.1: Introduce a questionnaire for interviewees to gather data on their experiences.

Action 9.2: Pilot blind short-listing (PS roles), parallel evaluation and sequential

interviewing.

Action 9.3: Deliver large-scale recruitment & selection training, with a focus on evidence-

based inclusive decision-making methodologies.

Action 9.4: Recruit and train anti-bias specialists to sit on interview panels.

Action 9.5: Continue to monitor the usage of and discourage straight to contract appointments.

Action 9.6: Conduct further research to understand factors which impact on recruitment to senior roles in order to maximise opportunities to use robust methodologies and control for bias.

Action 9.7: Conduct further R&S trend analyses when more data becomes available,

including intersectional analysis.

(ii) Induction

King’s runs termly Welcome to King’s sessions for new staff. Sessions focus on offering insight and understanding of King’s, the range of support and opportunities available, including D&I, and providing time for networking.

Approximately 200 of 800 new starters attend/year. Of these only 20% are academics, lower than expected given they comprise nearly 50% of appointments.

Each session is evaluated. As a result networking tables were introduced this year along with a session on health and wellbeing. In 2015/16, 64% of participants were extremely/very satisfied with the session.

A New Colleagues page has recently been added to the university website providing key induction information and guidance.

Faculty and departmental inductions run each term. For example, A&S run informal events to bring together new starters with the senior team, covering topics such as development opportunities and D&I. Local events report greater success in attracting Academic staff.

Individual staff induction plans will vary but include on-line training covering wellbeing, health and safety requirements.

Action 10.1: OD to regularly review content of induction with Deans and Directors to ensure its suitability for new staff.

83

83

Action 10.2: Use targeted invites for staff groups least likely to attend (currently academics).

Action 10.3: Update the Welcome Session feedback forms to enable feedback on the usefulness of the New Colleagues web pages to be collected.

Action 10.4: Compare new starter data with Welcome Session participation data to determine true take-up figures for different staff categories.

(iii) Promotion

Our data indicates that our interventions around academic promotions have been successful. Women now apply for promotion at the same rate as men and are often more successful. We did this by:

Sharing good practice guidance on supporting progression/promotion and video resources (including interviews with recently promoted staff) via the Gender Bulletin (2014).

The ASC terms of reference, membership and details of its operations were published along with a statement of commitment to D&I in promotions (2014/15).

All Faculty executive teams and central promotions panels have attended Unconscious Bias workshops from 2014/15

Additional senior peers joined panels, providing scope to address gender imbalances. In 2014/15 and 2015/16, the gender composition was: A&S 64%M (7), 36%F (4) and for the Health Faculties, 45%M (5) and 55%F (6)

Two cross-panel members ensure consistency between panels. For the last two rounds, these have been one man and one woman.

Since 2015, we have held Faculty and central promotion workshops including recently promoted BME and female speakers, e.g. in June 2016 three campus-based events were held pre-PDR to which 50 people attended (70%F). The evaluation suggested that over 70% obtained a better understanding of the process. Faculties ran similar events post-PDR.

A workshop/podcast on Teaching Excellence in the University Promotions Process was held which increased successful applications via the Education-led route (10 promotions in 2015/2016).

The process for disclosure of personal circumstances was formalised, based on learning from the REF. Information can be disclosed anonymously and is considered by a separately convened panel which considers the impact on the quantum of academic output over a defined period (2015/16).

We are pleased with our progress but we know we have more to do. A collection of survey responses relating to progression and development more generally are provided (figure 5.12). These provide quite high levels of satisfaction across the board, although in all cases slightly lower for women. In one case, when asked whether staff are treated on their merits, female responses were much lower (67%F, 81%M).

84

84

We have identified issues that we need to address:

Men are more likely to apply for a ‘double jump’ from SL to Professor than women (21% compared with 7%) (figure 5.8).

White and BME staff are equally likely to apply for promotion (irrespective of gender). However BME men and women are less likely to be successful than their White counterparts. BME women have the lowest success rate overall (figure 5.9).

Part-time staff have similar results to full-time staff but the numbers are too small to be significant. (figure 5.10)

The success rate of FT clinical women is below the rate of other staff groups, although numbers are small (figure 5.11)

We will focus on ensuring a better understanding of promotions processes by female staff and target support for BME women. We have already addressed the propensity for ‘double jumps’ by removing the assurance that promotion could happen to a lower level if the candidate was unsuccessful at the higher level.

Figure 5.6: Academic & Research promotions application & success rates, by gender

Application rate = number of staff who applied / number of eligible staff Success rate = number of staff who were successful / number who applied

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

2010-11 419 586 26 64 21 53 6% 11% 81% 83%

2011-12 333 490 28 52 20 41 8% 11% 71% 79%

2012-13 335 441 26 47 22 36 8% 11% 85% 77%

2013-14 392 464 53 65 40 50 14% 14% 75% 77%

2014-15 406 484 61 72 56 61 15% 15% 92% 85%

Grand Total 1885 2465 194 300 159 241 10% 12% 82% 80%

Eligible Applied Successful% of Eligible

who Applied

% of Successful

Applicants

85

85

Figure 5.7: Academic & Research promotions by gender

Figure 5.8: Academic & Research promotions application & success rates, by contract mode, gender and grade, 2010/11-2014/15

*bold = the grade staff were promoted to

Figure 5.9: Academic & Research promotions application & success rates, by ethnicity and gender

Year BME White BME White BME White BME White BME White BME White BME White BME White BME White BME White

2010-11 65 347 92 480 4 22 7 56 4 17 6 47 6% 6% 8% 12% 100% 77% 86% 84%

2011-12 48 282 67 411 4 23 8 44 2 17 6 35 8% 8% 12% 11% 50% 74% 75% 80%

2012-13 46 288 59 373 5 21 6 41 3 19 3 33 11% 7% 10% 11% 60% 90% 50% 80%

2013-14 55 335 69 385 8 44 11 53 3 36 7 42 15% 13% 16% 14% 38% 82% 64% 79%

2014-15 63 339 72 400 10 51 10 61 9 47 10 50 16% 15% 14% 15% 90% 92% 100% 82%

Grand Total 277 1591 359 2049 31 161 42 255 21 136 32 207 11% 10% 12% 12% 68% 84% 76% 81%

Eligible Applied Succesful % Eligible who Applied % Successful Applications

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

Total no.

Female

Grade no. % no. % no. % no. %

Professor 44 27% 74 29% 118 28% 3 17% 3 38% 6 23% 124

Reader 40 91% 52 70% 92 78% 2 67% 0% 2 33% 94

Senior Lecturer 3 7% 22 30% 25 21% 1 33% 3 100% 4 67% 29

Lecturer 1 2% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 1

Reader 48 29% 82 32% 130 31% 9 50% 2 25% 11 42% 141

Senior Lecturer 41 85% 66 80% 107 82% 9 100% 1 50% 10 91% 117

Lecturer 7 15% 16 20% 23 18% 0 0% 1 50% 1 9% 24

Senior Lecturer 74 45% 102 40% 176 42% 6 33% 3 38% 9 35% 185

Lecturer 74 100% 102 100% 176 100% 6 100% 3 100% 9 100% 185

Grand Total 166 100% 258 100% 424 100% 18 100% 8 100% 26 100% 450

Full-time Part-time

Male MaleFemale

Figure 5.10: Academic & Research promotions application & success rates, by contract mode & gender

Figure 5.11: Academic & Research promotions application & success rates, by clinical status and gender

Year Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

2010-11 303 480 116 106 25 63 1 1 20 52 1 1 8% 13% 1% 1% 80% 83% 100% 100%

2011-12 265 458 68 32 23 50 5 2 18 39 2 2 9% 11% 7% 6% 78% 78% 40% 100%

2012-13 269 424 66 17 22 47 4 19 36 3 8% 11% 6% 0% 86% 77% 75%

2013-14 319 436 73 28 48 62 5 3 36 50 4 15% 14% 7% 11% 75% 81% 80% 0%

2014-15 327 447 79 37 54 70 7 2 49 59 7 2 17% 16% 9% 5% 91% 84% 100% 100%

Grand Total 1483 2245 402 220 172 292 22 8 142 236 17 5 12% 13% 5% 4% 83% 81% 77% 63%

% Eligible who Applied % Successful Applications

Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-timeFull-time Part-timeFull-time

Eligible Applied Successful

Part-time Full-time Part-time

Year Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

2010-11 40 82 45 79 2 12 1 1 2 10 1 1 5% 15% 2% 1% 100% 83% 100% 100%

2011-12 30 67 20 12 3 7 1 1 3 5 0 1 10% 10% 5% 8% 100% 71% 0% 100%

2012-13 31 59 15 2 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 10% 12% 13% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0%

2013-14 37 68 17 4 3 4 2 0 2 4 2 0 8% 6% 12% 0% 67% 100% 100% 0%

2014-15 37 69 20 6 1 9 1 1 8 1 1 3% 13% 5% 17% 0% 89% 100% 100%

Grand Total 175 345 117 103 12 39 7 3 10 34 6 3 7% 11% 6% 3% 83% 87% 86% 100%

Eligible Applied Succesful % Eligible who Applied % Successful Applications

Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time

88

88

Figure 5.12: King’s Academic and Research staff survey results relating to promotion and development opportunities - % agreeing

Academic and Research staff Male

% Female

%

King's acts fairly regardless of ethnic background, gender, pregnancy/maternity with regard to career progression

81 67

King's treats people on their merits regardless of their gender/sex 89 86

I am given the same opportunities to develop as other staff. 74 70

I am satisfied with my current role and level of responsibility 91 90

I am satisfied with the support I get from my line manager 84 80

Action 11.1: Continue annual programme of university and faculty-level roadshows/promotions workshops.

Action 11.2: Reinforce message (in annual promotions communications, at promotions

roadshows and during PDRs), that formally declared personal circumstances are considered as part of promotions.

Action 11.3: Reinforce (in training/documents), the need to develop promotions plans as part of PDR with all staff regardless of working pattern and clinical status.

Action 11.4: Publish case studies of successful promotions of staff that are PT.

Action 11.5: Conduct intersectional analysis of academic promotions data annually for presentation to DISG in June each year.

Action 11.6: Collate in-depth Faculty AS survey responses to measure and monitor staff’s understanding of the promotions process.

(iv) Research Excellence Framework (REF)

The proportion of women submitted to the REF was 15% higher than for the RAE. There was no statistical difference in the rates compared with men (figure 5.13). The special circumstances model adopted nationally informed our academic promotions process.

Figure 5.13: Changes in gender proportion of RAE/REF submissions

89

89

Action 12: When HESA data becomes available nationally, conduct a benchmarking study of gender return rates to REF.

Meet the Professors

90

90

5.2 KEY CAREER TRANSITION POINTS: PROFESSIONAL AND SUPPORT STAFF

(i) RECRUITMENT

Although not requested, we have conducted an analysis of R&S for PS staff. Trends mirror those for Academics and Researchers. Whilst a healthy proportion of women are shortlisted for senior vacancies, this does not translated into appointments.

Actions: see section 5.1(i) for actions taken to date which mirror those taken for academic staff and Section 9 of the action plan for future actions.

Figure 5.14: Recruitment of women PS staff by grade

Applications Shortlisted Appointed

Grade 1-4 65% 67% 74%

Grade 5-7 60% 62% 67%

Grade 8+ 43% 56% 31%

(ii) Induction

PS staff are invited to the same, newly improved Welcome to King’s session as their academic colleagues. Out of 200 participants/year approximately 80% are PS staff, around 20% of new starters.

Many areas of the university report having local PS induction programmes in place. For example:

Since 2014, Estates & Facilities have incorporated unconscious bias training into their

extensive induction programme

In 2014, IoPPN produced an induction video and packs with information about AS support and expectations of PS staff

Prompted by AS feedback, FoLSM introduced an induction programme in 2016 for

new PS staff covering key topics such as development

91

91

Actions: for actions taken to date see section 5.1ii relating to academic staff and Section 10 of the action plan.

(iii) Promotion

There is no formalised promotions route for PS staff at King’s. However as a proxy measure, staff who have received a grade increase have been identified and compared with the number of staff in the grade below by gender. Increases in grade may occur due to regrading or through successful application to an internal or external vacancy. Staff acting up or temporarily seconded are not included, as they would

normally receive an allowance.

The analysis below focuses on staff who have moved into the senior grades. No conclusive trends are apparent with regards to the proportions progressing by gender (figure 5.15). Focusing on the total numbers who progressed over five years at each grade, women are slightly more likely to progress into Grade 7, with a more substantial difference at ALC6, and men are slightly more likely to progress to Grade 8. This suggests that there are no strong gender-related trends with respect to PS progression but we will keep this under review (figure 5.16).

A collection of staff survey responses relating to progression, development and line management support (figure 5.17) show good levels of satisfaction around access to these opportunities for

both genders, albeit with slightly lower responses for women around fairness and being treated on merit.

We have been improving transparency around pay via our Pay and Benefits webpages (figure 5.18). Information on PS staff survey responses relating to pay, can found in section 4.1v

Figure 5.16: PS progression into senior grades, 2010/11-2014/15

% of women who progressed

% of men who progressed

Grade 7 4.1% 3.5%

Grade 8 2.6% 3.2%

ALC6 4.4% 2.5%

92

92

Figure 5.17: King’s PS staff survey results relating to progression and opportunities - % agreeing

Male Female

I feel King's acts fairly regardless of ethnic background, gender, pregnancy/maternity with regard to career progression

80% 77%

I feel King's treats people on their merits regardless of their gender/sex 93% 89%

I feel they are given the same opportunities to develop as other staff. 70% 72%

I am satisfied with their current role and level of responsibility 73% 75%

I am satisfied with the support I get from my line manager 83% 84%

Figure 5.18: Screenshot of pay webpages

Action 13a.1: Devise a more sophisticated method for measuring PS progression and

undertake analysis to identify the extent that formal R&S accounts for PS progression compared with informal progression/regrading and if there are any gender/intersectional disparities.

Action 13a.2: Ensure new HR system can capture the reasons for grade increases so that ‘informal’ progression activity can be tracked.

Action 13a.3: Develop good practice guidance around offering internal

secondments/temporary promotions.

13b: Publicise skills profiles for a range of PS roles and provide pen portraits of successful

moves.

93

93

Action 7c.3: Present an equality analysis of exceptional pay awards to DISG in autumn of each year, broken down by grade and FT/PT status.

Action 7c.4: Develop a University-level communications plan to launch How can pay change

web pages to increase understanding/transparency of how pay negotiations/regrading may occur.

Meet the Professors

Meet the Professors

94

94

5.3 CAREER DEVELOPMENT: ACADEMIC STAFF

(i) Training

We recognise the need for tailored support for staff, particularly those at the early stages.

Reflecting on staff survey feedback, we have invested significant resources in training over the

last two years (figure 5.19).

Figure: 5.19 Academic and Research staff survey results relating to training

All academic & research

Teaching Research Academic

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Are satisfied with their current level of learning

and development

80% 77% - - - - - -

Feel their line manager has supported them in

accessing training, learning and development

76% 76% 75% 76% 79% 85% 74% 69%

Training targeted at women:

Aurora Women’s Leadership Development Programme

Since its launch in 2013/14, King’s has participated in Aurora. Last year, we exceeded the institutional participant threshold (15) to satisfy internal demand (figure 5.20).

Since 2014/15, eligible BME women have had priority for Aurora places. 33% of participants were BME in 2014/15 and 35% in 2015/16, compared to 0% in 2013/14. We offer this programme to Lecturers, Research Fellows and Postdoctoral Researchers (the cohorts who report the greatest benefit). Qualitative feedback (figure 5.21) suggests that delegates found it broadly valuable, particularly in relation to career progression.

Figure 5.20: Aurora programme participation

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Grand Total

Researcher 0 1 2 3

Academic 6 5 15 26

Grand Total 6 6 17 29

95

95

Figure 5.21: Summary of Academic and Research feedback on the Aurora Programme

Impacts - based on our impact study % agreeing

Attribute positive changes to their personal or professional lives through participation

66

Increased knowledge/understanding of how to prepare for career progression

80

A sounding board for challenges in the workplace/barriers to progression 60

Increased motivation 50

A greater understanding of and access to relevant professional networks 40

”I am part of a major grant application. By attending the Aurora program, I gained confidence and put myself forward to take on a lead role.” Lecturer

“Previously my approach was to keep my head down and figure my career would take off itself. Aurora gave me time to think strategically. It encouraged me to be 'active' in doing my

job and pursuing my career.” Lecturer

Springboard Women’s Development Programme

Since 2011/12, 210 female Researchers have attended Springboard. The programme was rolled out to Academic women in 2014/15; with 60 staff attending to date (30/year). Qualitative feedback (figure 5.22) shows delegates found it valuable, although satisfaction was markedly lower than for Aurora. Feedback suggests that time for reflection with external peers was the most valuable aspect.

Figure 5.22: Summary of Academic and Research feedback on the Springboard Programme


Attribute positive changes to their personal or professional lives through participation

50


Advice on work-life balance issues and balancing work with external commitments 50

Increased confidence 38

Increased knowledge/understanding of how to prepare for career progression 38

Career advancement (upward role/grade progression) 38

“This scheme was excellent in allowing me to have a greater understanding of myself and how I respond in certain situations. It allowed me to fully recognise my strengths and change my

perception on previously labelled weaknesses.” Lecturer

Public speaking masterclasses

96

96

In 2014/15, bespoke public speaking masterclasses were run by industry experts for 60 female Researchers and Academics covering media skills and how to promote research. An informal evaluation suggested participants felt the session had provided them with valuable tips and tools and they felt more confident in promoting their activities as a result. These sessions will run again in 2016/17.

Training programmes for all and expanding provision for those on FTC

OD offers Leadership Development programmes, encouraging managers to consider diversity when making nominations. We monitor the long and short lists to ensure this is reflected. This has led to greater representation of women on the current Futures programme (54%), compared to its predecessor, HeadStart (31%). Approximately 40

Academic and Research staff attend/year. 7% of women on both programmes have been BME.

Centre for Research Staff Development is a new team focusing on research, teaching and technical staff. It offers 90+ courses, e.g. leadership, careers and employability, communication, personal effectiveness, resilience and wellbeing and writing and publishing. Feedback for 2015/16 demonstrates that 91% felt the learning experience was very good/good and 89% felt the training was relevant to their needs. CRSD provide access to one-to-one confidential appointments with a careers consultant; opportunities to hear about careers beyond academia and coaching and mentoring.

In recognition of this activity we are proud to hold the European Commission’s HR Excellence in Research award.

CRSD is working with OD to assess the provision for PIs and will pilot additional activities during 2016/17.

Female Researchers are more likely to access this training (figure 5.23).

D&I offer unconscious bias training (mandatory for certain staff) and inclusive working for staff and managers (see section 5.6i).

Figure 5.23: Attendance at CRSD training by gender

2010/11 2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

F N F M F M F M F M F M

70% 30% 80% 20% 73% 27% 73% 27% 71% 29% 80% 20%

BME * * 61% 39% 68% 32% 75% 25% 74% 26% 72% 28%

White * * 84% 16% 76% 24% 72% 28% 70% 30% 82% 18%

*Data not available

97

97

Postdoctoral Researcher Networks

CRSD actively supports research staff networks that operate in each of the Health Faculties e.g. IoPPN’s Post-Doc Network and FoLSM’s Research Staff Network. These run a wide range of social, information-giving, training, and research-focused activities.

Images taken from CRSD brochure

Departmental research networks host

events and provide a voice within the larger faculty network e.g. Imaging Sciences Early Career Research Society.

Research Development Team

A cross-university team provides support to research staff in applying for research and fellowship funding.

Teachers

CRSD are currently consulting with TFs to better understand their training needs.

We are taking steps to more formally support the professional recognition and career development of TFs and Law are currently piloting a system of dedicated research time for these staff.

Action 15.1: Make targeted nominations to internal leadership programmes to ensure BME women are proportionally represented.

Action 15.2: Continue to prioritise places on Aurora to eligible BME women who are grade

6/7 PS, Lecturers, Research Fellows and Postdoctoral Researchers on last cohort taking place in 2017/18.

Action 15.3: Offer public speaking masterclass again in 2016/17 (and extend to women in PS) using promotional communications to ensure a diverse cohort.

Action 15.5: Explore merging academic and researcher cohorts or cease delivery based on

the mixed feedback results and replace with Action Learning.

Action 15.6: Evaluate programmes (intersectionally) for impact every 2 years. Where there

is no improvement replace with more supportive programmes/interventions.

98

98

(ii) Appraisal/development review

There is no central system for collecting data on PDR completion rates; although this is planned. We have high reported PDR completion rates for Academic staff (80%M, 82%F) but lower rates for Researchers (65%M and 66%F) and Teachers (66%M and 50%F) (figure 5.24). Academics had the lowest responses of feeling valued following PDR; women found the process slightly more useful than men. To ensure that PDRs are an effective developmental mechanism and that all staff receive them:

We published good PDR practice in September 2014.

During 2015/16 we set out high expectations around the completion and quality of

PDRs. Approximately 800 PDR reviewers were identified (of academic and research

staff). All were requested to attend Successful Performance Conversations training, 34% completed (40%F, 60%M). This represents a significant improvement compared to 2010/11-2014/15, when very few staff attended. We will repeat this exercise.

A tailored appraisal for Researchers was introduced in FoLSM in 2015. This will be extended to the other Faculties.

Figure 5.24: King’s academic and research staff survey results relating to PDR

Teachers Researchers Academics


Received a PDR within the

last 12 month

66% 50%, 65% 66% 80% 82%

PDR process left them feeling that their worked

was valued by King’s

71% 76% 71% 71% 69% 64%

Found the PDR useful 64% 70% 67% 74% 62% 65%

Agreed a personal development plan as part

of the PDR

71% 73% 80% 77% 71% 72%

Action 16.1: Review PDR training and delivery to ensure inclusive messaging.

Action 16.2: Use the new HR System to better track PDR completion rates (using staff survey results as an interim proxy measure).

Action 16.3: Report on PDR completion rates by gender, ethnicity and job category, by department to DISG, annually.

Action 16.4: Use the new HR System survey reporting tool to track staff satisfaction with PDR process, including whether staff have created a career development plan/discussed promotion/progression (using staff survey results as a proxy measure in the interim).

99

99

Action16.5: Introduce training/guidance for reviewees, especially as this process is employee-led.

Action 16.6: Devise and introduce a tailored PDR for research staff.

Action 16.8: Institute PDR/talent review circles to ensure decisions about staffs’ development plans are not made by lone line managers in isolation.

Action 16.9: Institute transparent and objective leadership competency frameworks and criteria.

(iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression

Mentoring Schemes

AS faculty and departmental feedback indicates that women value mentorship as a career progression tool. In response we have established a range of schemes:

Since 2014, the IoPPN, DI as well as FoLSM divisions established postdoctoral research mentoring schemes for both women and men.

CRSD is establishing a mentoring scheme for Researchers across all Health Faculties.

In 2013/14 the university piloted a dedicated Gender Ambitions Mentoring Scheme (GAMS) for female STEMM academics. In 2014/15 this was extended to AHSSBL female academics and Researchers. Pairs were matched and received training before meeting. It had high take up and some positive results:

To date, 101 Academics and Researchers have received mentoring.

In 2015/16, places on the scheme were prioritised for eligible BME women and

participation increased from 13% to 30%.

Feedback was not as positive as anticipated. We will do more to manage mentee expectations and provide additional touch-points (figure 5.25).

As a consequence, we have introduced the Diversity Mentoring Scheme, with a project team and additional resource. We expect the impacts of the scheme to increase to ratings of over 50% in the first year, increasing annually. In the event there are insufficient mentors, mentees will be given the opportunity to join an Action Learning Set; Aurora feedback indicates this is valued by these staff. To foster a mentoring culture, the Vice President and other senior sponsors promote the Scheme (figure 5.26).

Figure 5.25: Summary of Academic and Research feedback on GAMS

Action 16.10: Conduct an EIA of the PDR/talent review criteria and leadership competency framework during their development.

Action 16.11: Develop inclusive recommended guidance around the use of talent criteria and leadership competency frameworks.

100

100





Increased knowledge/understanding of how to prepare for career progression 29

“As a result of my participation in the scheme I was encouraged to explore the process of a Fellowship. It has been very helpful that my mentor has extensive experience in this area

which has helped me progress faster with identifying and assessing Fellowship opportunities, a process that I would have felt intimidated to undertake and would have

probably postponed. ” Research Associate

“I applied for a new (better) post during the mentoring scheme and had excellent feedback and constructive advice from my mentor for the entire application process.” Academic

“My mentor encouraged me to apply for promotion, which had been halted for years by my line manager.” Reader (SL on entering the Scheme in 2013/14)

Figure 5.26: Screenshots from the senior sponsors page of the Diversity Mentoring Scheme site

101

101

Action 17a.1: Continue to allocate priority places on King’s Diversity Mentoring Scheme to BME women.

Action 17a.2: Continue to ensure the King’s Diversity Mentoring Scheme is widely publicised

as a way to obtain a mentor or join an action learning set to satisfy the demand in this area.

Action 17a.3: Collate an annual report on cross-university mentoring schemes, including participation numbers, target audiences and feedback from participants for quality assurance purposes.

Action 17a.5: Continue to sponsor annual London International Women’s Leadership

Symposium on an annual basis and prioritise allocation of King’s 30 delegate places to Aurorans, mentees and women on internal leadership programmes (who have not

previously attended the event).

Action 17a.6: Run a leadership networking event for professors at King’s.

Researcher specific:

Action 17c.5: Develop a method for analysing postdoctoral research grant application rates by gender (and the intersection of race) as a proxy measure of the utility of the university supports (listed above) and explore viable method for calculating grant application success rates.

Teaching specific:

Action 14.1: Roll out pilot of ‘dedicated research time for TFs’ across A&S.

Action 14.3: Develop more targeted/consistent communication channels with Teachers re relevant training/development opportunities available through CRSD.

Action 14.4: Invite a Teaching Representative to sit on the Concordat group (or other appropriate fora) to provide representative feedback on CRSD provision and future university actions.

Action 17b.1: Pilot a targeted ECR mentoring scheme (currently in development) with senior academics with 2 cohorts of 25.

Action 17b.2: Promote the successful fellowship application bank to faculties and continue to encourage staff to populate the bank with new successful applications.

Action 17b: Roll out locally developed good practice support initiatives for ECRs across all faculties (including grant writing events, mock review panels, publishing workshop materials online).

Action 17b.4: CRSD to enhance communications mechanisms to reach all research staff.

102

102

5.4 Career Development: Professional and Support Staff

(i) Training

Training targeted at women:

Aurora Women’s Leadership Programme

An increasing number of PS women have been sponsored on Aurora (figure 5.27). Since 2014/15 managers have been asked to consider the diversity of nominations and places have been prioritised for eligible BME applicants. They comprised 25% of participants in 2014/15 and 2015/16. Feedback suggests that Aurora is a valuable development tool for this cohort, in particular the time to reflect with peers on challenges in the workplace (figure 5.28).

For the past two years, our Aurorans have received priority invites to the London Women’s Leadership Symposium, hosted at King’s.

Figure 5.27: Aurora attendance figures from 2013/14

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Grand Total

Attendees 1 8 12 21

Figure 5.28: Summary of PS feedback on Aurora


Attributed positive changes to personal or professional life as a result of participation

73

Served as a useful sounding board for challenges 82

Addressed workplace/barriers to progression 82



Increased knowledge/skills related to your work 55


55

Increased understanding of the Higher Education Sector 55

A greater understanding of and access to relevant professional networks

55

Provided useful advice on work-life balance issues and balancing work with external commitments

55

“Meeting other people who do your job is fantastic, we helped each other work through issues and everyone was very supportive and encouraging.” Team Leader, grade 5

103

103

“I recently applied for a post 2 grades above my current post as a result of participation in this programme and the many things it offers” Manager, grade 6, identifying as BME

“I think one of the things I learned most about was the idea of 'strategic networking' - trying to find people outside my immediate comfort zone to talk to and check in with”

Senior Consultant, grade 8

Springboard Women’s Development Programme

Since 2014/15 Springboard has been offered to PS women across all grades, with 2 cohorts, 30 places/year. In 2015, the Division of Cancer Studies sponsored a colleague to become a Springboard trainer, as part of CPD and to support the University’s AS programme.

Survey feedback suggests that the most valuable aspect is the peer support (figure 5.29)

Figure 5.29: Summary of PS feedback on Springboard


Attributed positive changes to personal or professional life as a result of participation

67

Served as a useful sounding board for challenges 73




53


53

“I've learnt to trust my own judgement and opinions more. I have the motivation now to pursue my goals and make the most of opportunities.” Coordinator, grade 4

“I have become more active in networking with people doing a similar role to me, to share experience and best practice.” Senior Officer, grade 5

“The course had a large impact on both my personal life and professional life. I discovered skills that I didn't know I possessed such as leadership and management. I gained more

self-confidence. The course gave me the motivation and confidence to apply for management jobs and to start studying for an HND in Business Management.”

Administration Lead, grade 5

104

104

Photo: Women on our first PS Springboard programme cohort in 2015 – receiving their certificates from Tessa Harrison, Director, SED

Training open to all

Organisation Development is the main training provider for PS staff, so the learning and development results are discussed here. They show satisfaction levels were not as high as expected. This led to increased investment with more available courses (figure 5.30).

Uptake data from 2011/12-2015/16 indicates that women’s attendance has been consistently higher than men’s. It decreases by grade, reflecting their representation in the workforce.

Two leadership programmes were launched in 2015/16: Future Leaders for Directors and Emerging Leaders for Grades 6-8. The majority (77%) of places were allocated to PS staff, women comprised 62% (49 places), and 14% BME. As in 5.3i above, messaging throughout the nominations process (self and manager nominations) supported this emphasis on diversity.

As above see section 5.6i for our D&I training. Figure 5.30: King’s PS staff survey results relating to training

Male Female

Are satisfied with their current level of learning and development.

63%

66%

Their line manager has supported them in accessing training, learning and development

76% 82%

Actions 17a.1, 17a.2 and 17.4 as described in section 5.3 (iii).

105

105

(ii) Appraisal/development review

As in section 5.3ii, there is no central system for collecting data on completion rates or the quality of PDR.

Staff survey results show that PDR completion rates are lower than for Academic and Research staff, although high proportions are receiving informal feedback. Women report slightly higher levels of satisfaction with the appraisal (figure 5.31).

Approximately 700 PS reviewers were identified in 2015/16. Of those 34% completed our PDR training (61%F and 49%M). 34% represents a significant improvement compared to attendance in 2010/11-2014/15 when few attended.

Figure 5.31: King’s PS staff survey results relating to PDR

Male Female

Received a PDR within the last 12 months 65% 68%

Line manager provides them with feedback about their performance

77% 78%

Found the PDR useful 67% 73%

PDR process left them feeling that their work is valued by King’s

75% 80%

Agreed a personal development plan as part of the PDR 73% 73%

Action 16.7: Devise and introduce tailored PDR for non-sessional Teachers.

See also Actions 16.1 – 16.11 in section 5.3 (ii)

(iii) Support given to professional and support staff for career progression

In addition to the training offered by King’s there are other schemes to support career

development:

Professional Networks

Professional Networks have been introduced to improve efficiency and enable greater collaboration and career progression across faculty and CS PS staff. They are being piloted in 11 areas such as Marketing & Communications, Technical Services and D&I.

The Networks support staff to develop a career in their field by mapping career pathways and supporting mobility. E.g. Marketing and Communications Network, (COMMA), have developed a competency framework, hold an annual conference and have identified specific development and mentoring for members (figure 5.32). Each Network will report on progress to the Senior VP Operations, overseeing this development.

106

106

Figure 5.32: Screenshot of COMMA Network intranet pages

Technical staff

Figure 5.33 Image from CRSD brochure, Stephen Franey, Regional Coordinator for HEaTED

In partnership with the Science Council, we have developed a professional registration framework for Technicians to become ‘chartered’ scientists. We are heavily involved in starting a Technician’s Apprenticeship Scheme.

In October 2016, we gained Employer Champions status for our commitment to investing in and supporting the development of scientific staff.

The Technical Services Network brings staff together to

provide professional development, peer support and a voice for Technical Professionals at King’s.

Supporting webpages promote membership and the chartered registration process.

King’s is feeding into the HEFCE grant-funded national consultation project to develop a career development framework for technicians.

107

107

We are a member of HEaTED, providing professional development and networking opportunities for Technicians, aligned closely to King’s through the Regional Coordinator, a King’s staff member (figure 5.33).

Mentoring schemes

As in 5.3iii, mentoring schemes for PS staff exist in a number of faculties and directorates. In response to staff survey results, FoLSM established a PS mentoring scheme (2016). Estates and External Relations also have their own schemes.

Gender Ambitions Mentoring Scheme (GAMS)

In 2015/16 GAMS was piloted with women in PS grades 7 and above, (where gender representation declines). 10 mentoring pairs were established.

Feedback (figure 5.34) suggests the scheme did not assist with career progression (most likely due to the absence of existing career pathways); the need to share clear expectations with mentees at the outset; and that additional touch points are required.

The issues above are being addressed through the new Diversity Mentoring Scheme, extended to all female PS staff (as well as Trans, non-binary and BME staff).

Figure 5.34: Summary of PS feedback on GAMS



40


40


“It’s been really useful to discuss professional challenges with someone who has the experience and objectivity to provide reflection, insight and supportive guidance”

Action 17c.1: Put in place robust methods of identifying Technical staff on HRMS.

Action 17c.2: When robust identifiers have been agreed, conduct diversity analysis for this group and report to USAT.

Action 17c.3: Technical Professional Network to provide progress reports to USAT on key career development metrics including: numbers working towards/attained chartered status, use of CPD frameworks and other development opportunities.

Action 17a.1 (above) Continue to offer mentoring to all female PS staff and prioritise BME women in the matching process.

.

108

108

5.5 FLEXIBLE WORKING AND MANAGING CAREER BREAKS

(i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave

Since 2013, we have been building resources and guides for managers to help them support staff before, during and after leave and promote the programmes in place.

To improve awareness of

available support for parents and carers (policies, procedures, support schemes and funds) information is now located in one place on our Parents’ and Carers’ Hub (pictured). Here staff can find out what we offer:

Supporting Parents and Carers Top Tips workshops: Piloted with three cohorts of managers (total 20, 55%F, 45%M), these case-based workshops focus on supporting staff before,

during and after leave and key tips for negotiating flexible working arrangements, (2015). They were evaluated and positively received.

Manager and staff emails: On notification of a period of leave (maternity, adoption,

paternity, SPL) the member of staff and their manager receive an email containing the maternity guide/checklist (below) and links to key schemes/resources hosted on the hub.

Maternity Leave Guidance & Checklist: This outlines manager’s responsibilities for staff welfare, leave, cover, KIT days and supporting the staff member’s on-going career development. Feedback suggests that an abbreviated version of the guide would be more helpful.

Cover for staff: Maternity, Shared Parental and adoption pay are all funded from a central budget at King’s for eligible staff. This means funds are available locally to contribute towards cover and managers are encouraged to use these for this purpose via the communications channels above. Where staff face barriers, they are encouraged to approach their HR adviser for assistance.

Staff members on FTCs: These staff have the same rights to maternity leave and pay as those on open-ended contracts. Where cover is not automatically provided for externally-funded staff, managers explore suspending or extending grants as early as possible with the funder.

Parent buddy scheme: This is mentioned in more detail in section 5.5iii below and is open to soon-to-be-parents.

109

109

Faculty support: The IoPPN Parenting Network (established 2014) meets termly and is open

to parents before, during and after leave. It acts as an informal focus group and issues feed into the AS SAT. An HR representative attends to answer policy questions.

Action 18a.1: Develop Top Tips into an e-module to ensure that this resource is accessible at point of need in particular for clinicians and teaching staff. (Refresh bi-annually / when policy updated).

Action 18a.2: Revise the guidance and checklist to ensure it is inclusive of staff taking SPL and other types of leave – and there is a trigger for circulation by HR to staff and manager.

Action 18a.3: Develop a more concise version of the online guidance and checklist, with links to further details (including recommended good practice case studies, and promotion of the e-module).

Action 18a.4: Monitor staff awareness of this information and the supports available through faculty AS and PCN members’ survey feedback.

Action 18a.5: Promote, maintain and update Hub (revise pages to include a feedback mechanism to collect suggestions for site development).

Action 18a.6: Explore a system for managers to provide details of the support they will put in place for staff (similar to that which is required in PLF) as part of the Maternity Checklist.

Action 18a.9: Survey maternity returners every 2 years to monitor and evaluate their experiences.

Action 19: Develop consistent policy and practice in support of our student parents.

Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave

King’s maternity and adoption policies offer 18 weeks of absence at full pay. Staff are entitled to 10 KIT days. Our checklist encourages managers to include staff while on leave so they continue

to feel part of the team by inviting them to social events, but also makes it clear that they are not expected to work during this period.

In 2015 and 2016 we extended the Carer’s Career Development Fund (details below) to help with additional childcare costs associated with KIT days.

Action 18a.7: Consult with new Parent & Carer’s Network about the availability and practicality of taking up KIT days.

Action 18a.8: Promote the extended availability of the Careers Career Development fund (to cover KIT days) on the new hub.

110

110

(iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work

The university provides financial and other supports to returning parents and carers advertised online. King’s helped to promote the use of these schemes within the sector, via a national webinar organised by MyFamilyCare (2015).

Schemes include:

Parenting Leave Fund (PLF)

A fund of £200,000/year, established 2013, to mitigate against impacts of maternity/parental leave on Academic and Research careers.

Successful applicants can employ a temporary research, teaching, or technical assistant on their return to enable them to focus on career-enhancing activities.

To date 52 awards have been made (65% allocated to Academics and 35% to Researchers).

After consulting with fund recipients and managers the maximum award level was reduced

from £20,000 to £10,000 to enable more individuals to benefit. In October 2016 we received our first two applications from men taking SPL.

For the last two years, the Fund has

been further supplemented by a Wellcome Trust grant.

The fund recently opened to carers and is called the Parenting and Carer’s Leave Fund.

Feedback demonstrates positive results, in particular around increased publication success (figure

5.35).

111

111

Figure 5.35: Summary of academic and research staff feedback on the PLF


Attribute positive outcomes to having received the award 65

Increased numbers of publications 68


Increased job satisfaction 60

Increased comfort/integration into the workplace 45

Increased work-life balance 41

increase the number of grants submitted 36

“The time and space away from the burdens of teaching and admin allowed me to focus on research. An outcome of this was the development of some close collaborations and the

receipt of a number of grants (worth £1.5million). In addition, my confidence and passion in science has returned. I am now on a steep career trajectory and excited by my future

academic career.” (Lecturer)

Carer’s Career Development Fund (CCDF)

Launched in 2014 for Academic and Research staff and extended to PS staff in 2015, it offers up to £250 to offset additional care costs associated with attending conferences and other career-enhancing events outside normal working hours/patterns.

34 awards have been made, principally to Research and Academic staff.

Feedback suggests that a more systematic approach to covering these costs from grant funding would benefit Academic and Research staff.

Figure 5.36: Summary of academic and research staff feedback on the CCDF


Increased job satisfaction 58%

Gave greater access to relevant professional networks 53%

Increased confidence 42%

Increased motivation 42%

Increased knowledge and skills related to their work 42%

“The CCDF helped me with the costs of travelling to Vienna to present my work on an European Conference, with my husband and kids, while I was on maternity leave” (Female

Clinical Research Associate)

112

112

Parent Buddy Scheme

An institution-wide Parent Buddy Scheme was introduced in 2013 to connect staff with each other and receive mutual support before, during and after a period of leave (49 members, all female). In 2014 members created a Facebook page (40 members) to facilitate information sharing (pictured). In 2015, member consultation highlighted that colleagues were struggling to meet, particularly across-campuses. This year the

scheme was refreshed and renamed the Parent and Carers Network. Several campus-based coffee and catch-up meetings will be facilitated centrally alongside member-organised meetings. To attract carers and a more diverse membership, the Network is sponsored by a range of senior male and female colleagues (PS and academic) with a variety of parenting and caring roles. The Network officially re-launches in early 2017.

Other support

Following IoPPN good practice (2014), King’s has created Parenting Rooms at our main campuses (with nursing chairs, sterilisers and

lockable fridges, pictured), these are included on campus maps.

The university operates a childcare voucher scheme which enables

eligible staff to make savings on the cost of childcare through salary sacrifice. Women comprise 55% of beneficiaries.

Action 18d.1: Continue to run PLF and CCDF with refreshed communications to raise awareness of existence, purpose and eligibility.

Action 18d.2: Run a focus group with recipients of the PLF to understand how we can

enhance its impact.

Action 18d.3: Explore opportunities for additional care costs associated with career enhancing work activities (e.g. conference attendance) outside of normal working hours/patterns to be provided as standard through King’s research policy.

Action 18c.1: Launch and promote the new Parent and Carer’s Network.

Action 18c.2: Evaluate whether the new Network structure is meeting members’ needs.

Action 18b.1: Continue to progress development of a Parenting Room at Waterloo campus.

Action 18a.12: Continue to promote schemes to support returners nationally (King’s to

feature as case study for Working Families webinar on Family Friendly Policies and Practices in Feb 2017.

113

113

(iv) Maternity return rate

Greater awareness of gender issues/flexibility has led to improvements in maternity return rates.

We have an average 5-year maternity return rate of 84.3%. Return rates for Academics are high, around 90% (figure 5.37), while Researcher rates fluctuate, averaging 80.6%. PS return rates have steadily increased by 13.7% to 91.5%.

The staff groups least likely to return were Researchers, Teachers and PS (although the number of Teachers was extremely small). Out of those not returning from maternity leave (112 over the period), expiry of a FTC accounts for 56%. Researchers make up 66% of these staff.

On average 72% of staff that go on leave are still in post 6 months after returning, 63% after 12 months and 53% after 18 months (figure 5.38). At 18 months, retention rates for Academics are consistently higher than the university average and have increased by 12% to 78%. For Teachers the increase is 10%. Rates for PS and Researchers have not improved.

The proportion of PS staff, Researchers and Teachers that are still in post today has improved (an increase of 36%, 16% and 27% respectively).

The PLF was introduced in 2013/14 so it is not yet possible to see the longer-term impacts of this investment.

Action 18a.10: Investigate why PS staff are not being retained as well as academic staff.

114

114

Figure 5.37: Maternity return rates broken down by role

The return rate is the proportion of the original population who took leave, compared with those who returned within a particular timeframe. The reporting years identify those who started a period of maternity leave in that year. Assuming that some will take 52 weeks leave, we have only reported on return rates for the time periods where we have reliable data for the entire period.

Year leave commenced

No. taking leave that year

Did not return (FTC expired)

Did not return (Unrelated to FTC)

Maternity return rate

2010 – 2011

Academics 18 0 (0%) 1 (5.6%) 17 (94.4%)

Researchers 52 5 (9.6%) 2 (3.9%) 45 (86.5%)

Teachers 7 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3) 5 (71.4%)

PS 54 1 (1.9%) 11 (20.4%) 42 (77.8%)

Total 131 7 (4.4%) 15 (11.5%) 109 (83.2%)

2011 – 2012

Academics 31 5 (16.1%) 2 (6.5%) 24 (77.4%)

Researchers 54 4 (7.4%) 2 (3.7%) 48 (88.9%)

Teachers 10 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 9 (90%)

PS 61 1 (1.6%) 7 (11.5%) 53 (86.9%)

Total 156 11 (7.1%) 11 (7.1) 134 (85.9%)

2012 - 2013

Academics 14 1 (7.1%) 0 (0%) 13 (92.9%)

Researchers 54 14 (25.9%) 3 (5.6%) 37 (68.5%)

Teachers 10 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (100%)

PS 50 3 (6%) 6 (12%) 41 (82%)

Total 128 18 (14.1%) 9 (7%) 101 (78.9%)

2013 – 2014

Academics 25 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 23 (92%)

Researchers 50 6 (12%) 1 (2%) 43 (86%)

Teachers 6 1 (16.7%) 1 (16.7) 4 (66.7%)

PS 69 3 (4.4%) 6 (8.7%) 60 (87%)

Total 150 11 (7.3%) 9 (6%) 130 (86.7%)

2014-2015

Academics 26 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 26 (100%)

Researchers 56 13 (23.2%) 2 (3.6%) 41 (73.2%)

Teachers 9 0 (0%) 1 (11.1%) 8 (88.9%)

PS 59 3 (5.1%) 2 (3.4%) 54 (91.5%)

Total 150 16 (10.7%) 5 (1.3%) 129 (86%)

Grand Total 715 63 (8.8%) 49 (6.9%) 603 (84.3%)

115

115

Figure 5.38: Proportion of staff remaining in post after a period of maternity leave, 2010-11 to 2014-15

Retention rates

Academic year of commencement

of leave

No.s taking leave that

year

No.s returning

from leave

No.s still in post at

6 months


12 months


18 months Still in post

2010 – 2011

Academics 18 17

14 (77.8%) 12 ( 66.7%) 12 (66.7%) 9 (50.0%)

Researchers 52 45

32 (61.5%) 28 (53.8%) 21 (40.4%) 10 (19.2%)

Teachers 7 5 5 (71.4%) 3 (42.9%) 3 (42.9%) 1 (22.0%)

PS 54 42

34 (63%) 30 (55.6%) 28 (51.9%) 10 (18.5%)

Total 131 109 85 (64.9%) 73 (55.7%) 64 (48.9%) 30 (22.9%)

2011 – 2012

Academics 31 24

22 (71%) 20 (64.5%) 20 (64.5%) 17 (54.8%)

Researchers 54 48

42 (77.8%) 31 (57.4%) 26 (48.1%) 11 (20.4%)

Teachers 10 9 7 (75.6%) 6 (64.1%) 6 (58.3%) 4 (40.39%)

PS 61 53

47 (77.0%) 43 (70.5%) 39 (63.9%) 31 (50.8%)

Total 156 134 118 (75.6%) 100 (64.1%) 91 (58.3%) 63 (40.4%)

2012 - 2013 (18 month reliable cut off point)

Academics 14 13

12 (85.7%) 11 (78.6%) 11 (78.6%) 11 (78.6%)

Researchers 54 37

31 (57.4%) 26 (48.1%) 22 (40.7%) 19 (35.2%)

Teachers 14 14 10 (68.2%) 8 (57.6%) 8 (52.3%) 8 (48.9%)

PS 50 41

37 (74.0%) 31 (62.0%) 28 (56%) 26 (52.0%)

Total 132 105 90 (68.2%) 76 (57.6%) 69 (52.3%) 64 (48.5%)

2013 - 2014 (6 & 12 month reliable cut off point)

Academics 25 23

21 (84.0%) 21 (84.0%) * *

Researchers 50 43

36 (72.0%) 30 (60.0%) * *

Teachers 6 4 4 (79.3%) 4 (71.3%) * *

PS 69 60

58 (84.1%) 52 (75.4%) * *

Total 150 130 119 (79.3%) 107 (71.3%)

Total (Average) 569 478 412 (72.4%) 365 (62.6%) - -

116

116

(v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake

The university provides full information on staff members’ rights and how to request different types of leave on our Hub website.

Shared Parental Leave (SPL)

When SPL was introduced, April 2015, we took the decision to provide more than the statutory level of Shared Parental Pay to eligible staff, whether they are the mother, main adopter, father, or main adopter’s partner. We pay occupational rates of pay in line with occupational maternity pay to eligible employees and additionally, where both are employees of the university.

We track SPL uptake quarterly with figures for 2015/16 and for 2016/17 to October 2016 (figures 5.39 and 5.40). Men from all job categories (other than Teachers), on FTC and open-ended contracts are taking SPL for significant periods. Across the university, uptake is 57% STEMM, 29% CS and 14% AHSSBL.

Women in all job categories (other than Teachers), on both FTC and open-ended contracts, are taking this leave and for longer periods than men. More men compared to women have taken SPL to date (14M and 6F). Uptake across the university, 50% STEMM, 33% CS, 17% AHSSBL.

Figure 5.39: Men’s uptake of SPL

Year Mode Terms Staff category Total

Parenting Leave (days)

2015/16 FT Open Academic 56

2015/16 FT FTC Academic 56

2015/16 FT FTC Academic 77

2015/16 FT Open PS 28

2015/16 FT Open PS 84

2015/16 PT Open Researcher 91

2015/16 FT FTC Researcher 70



2016/17 FT Open PS 84

2016/17 FT Open PS 56

2016/17 FT Open PS 56

2016/17 FT FTC PS 28

2016/17 FT FTC Researcher 35

117

117

Figure 5.40: Women’s uptake of SPL

Year Mode Terms Staff Category

Total Parenting Leave (days)

Shared Parental Leave (days)

2014/15 FT Open Academic 244 62

2014/15 FT FTC Research 147 35

2014/15 FT FTC PS 210 196

2015/16 FT Open PS 274 260

2015/16 FT FTC Academic 98 7

2016/17 FT Open Academic 27 27

Adoption leave

Between 2010/11 and 2014/15 very few people took adoption leave (6, mainly women) and even fewer took surrogacy leave.

Paternity/partners leave

In 2015 we increased our occupational paternity/partners pay to 2 weeks full pay following a good practice HE benchmarking exercise. This is available to eligible staff whether they are the father, spouse, partner or civil partner, of any gender identity, of a new mother/main adopter.

Paternity/partner’s leave has only been recorded when the duration was longer than the period that could be taken at full pay (one and then two weeks’ pay in 2015). Similarly, Additional Paternity Leave was captured only when it was unpaid. Hence our data is only partial.

On average, 20 men take paternity/partners leave each year, with very few making use of Additional Paternity Leave (figure 5.41). While figures are small, it is pleasing that the number has increased from 21 to 33/year over the period.

Research staff in particular were more likely to take Paternity/partners leave compared with

the male representation within this role group, followed by Lecturers and SL, which may be related to the age profile of these staff (figure 5.42).

For PS staff, those in Grades 5-7 were more likely to take Paternity/partners leave compared with the male representation within these groups, and again this may reflect the age profile

(figure 5.43).

Figure 5.41: Take up of Paternity and Additional Paternity Leave (APL)

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Paternity Leave 21 12 17 20 33

APL 2 1 2

118

118

Figure 5.42: Academic, Research & Teaching Staff taking Paternity/Partners Leave, 2010/11 – 2014/15

Teachers Researchers Lecturers Senior Lecturers

Readers Professors Total


4 (8.5%) 22 (47%) 12 (25%) 7 (15%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 47

% of total male academic/research workforce in each

group

24% 33% 10% 9% 4% 18% 100%

Figure 5.43: PS staff taking Paternity/Partners Leave, 2010/11 – 2014/15

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

ALC6 Total


1 (2%)

3 (5%)

2 (4%)

8 (14%)

10 (18%)

17 (30%)

11 (20%)

3 (5%)

1 (2%)

56

% of total PS male workforce in each

group

4% 6% 6% 21% 15% 20% 13% 7% 5%

Action 20.1: Ensure communications to promote the new Parent & Carer’s Network are explicit that this is for all parents and carers at King’s.

Action 20.2: Provide an ‘understanding SPL’ session through the Parent’s & Carer’s Network.

Action 20.3: Develop Hub resources to include recommended good practice guides on supporting SPL and publish case studies.

Action 20.4: Ensure that the new HR system and processes are capable of recording all

paternity/partners leave regardless of duration and can distinguish between paternity/partners leave and SPL.

Action 20.5: Analyse 2015/16 and future data to understand the extent to which men taking SPL is increasing as a proportion of all men taking paternity/partners leave.

119

119

(vi) Flexible working

All staff with a minimum of 26 weeks’ continuous service have the right to request flexible working. Official requests are considered by the manager and Head of Department, with advice from HR where needed. If a change in working pattern is agreed then this is recorded on the HR system. In practice, informal arrangements are often put in place and are not necessarily recorded. As a result data on uptake is unreliable, so has not been provided. King’s encourages flexible working and managers receive good practice advice and support on how to consider requests through the Maternity Guidance and Checklist. Consultation and ongoing feedback from AS SATs confirms that flexible working is less accessible to PS staff. In addition staff experiences vary between departments, mirroring the picture at other universities as shared at AS Regional Network Meetings.

Throughout 2016, we have worked closely with national charity Working Families. With their help we will commence a Flexible culture change programme to upskill managers and promote consistency in this area (2017). The programme will prioritise PS Managers.

Action 21a.1: Roll out the pilot Flexible Culture Change Programme with PS cohort, evaluate and consider wider roll out.

Action 21a.2: Alongside this run a campaign to raise awareness of flexible working options including the publication of case studies of staff in a variety of roles (and levels of responsibility) on the Hub with links to other key pages – e.g. Staff benefits and Well-being pages.

Action 21a.3: Articulate how flexible working supports a high performance culture at King’s in HPC materials/training and communications.

Action 21a.4: Develop Hub to include good practice guides produced by Working Families as well as links to the independently produced Flexible Boss magazine (issues 2013-2016).

Action 21a.5: Continue annual membership of Working Families and participate in their annual flexible working benchmarking survey to see how we compare to the national

120

120

picture and share results with DISG, SET and PS Managers Forum to discuss/action plan.

Action 21a.6: Evaluate faculty AS survey results to measure staff’s awareness of flexible working.

Action 21a.7: Provide details of the different flex options in our candidate packs and promote the use of Working Families’ ‘Happy to Talk Flexible Working’ logo in job adverts, particularly for senior level appointments.

Action 21b.1: Promote recently developed easy reference guide to the IT Services that are available to support remote workers and their teams, including on Hub, New-Starter Packs, PDR and Maternity Checklist.

Action 21b.2: Consider further IT infrastructure supports available to support flexible working.

Action 21c.1: Ensure new HR System is capable of capturing and recording both formal and informal flexible working arrangements.

Action 21c.2: Invite staff to create Flexible Passports to capture their existing formal and informal arrangements to promote open conversations about these if staff are seconded/move roles – and also to help populate the new HR System with working patterns (formal and informal).

(vii) Transition from part-time back to full-time work after career breaks

The option for phased return to work after a career break is promoted in the Maternity Guidance and Checklist.

There is no formal policy which guarantees that staff can move back to FT after a period of PT employment, but we are not aware of instances where this has not been possible after a period of caring responsibilities. As part of GAMS (and the Diversity Mentoring Scheme), mentees could request mentors with particular experience of career breaks. 20% took up this option.

The Parents’ & Carers’ Network will provide opportunities for staff to better understand policy, practice and support available in this area; the programme will include a returners coaching session delivered by Working Families.

Action 18a.11: Develop and promote transparent guidance on the use of phased returns

after a period of family- related/carers leave to ensure staff are aware of this as a possible arrangement.

121

121

(viii) Childcare

King’s does not have its own nursery. Staff are eligible to apply for places at the six nurseries run by our NHS partners based at our campuses and we offer salary-sacrifice childcare vouchers. We have begun discussions with the LSE nursery, near our Strand Campus, about the potential to share facilities. Feedback from SATs and the D&I Champion’s network means that the USAT prioritised the provision of enhanced childcare support. A working group has been established, co-chaired by a female Professor/SAT Lead and HR Director to address this.

Action 22.1: Run a full and transparent review of equitable childcare support/provision options and full consultation with staff (and student) parents.

Action 22.2: Invite Working Families to provide independent advice on findings and next steps actions.

Action 22.3: Share findings and recommended next step actions (including related programme of works) with DCN, DISG, USAT SET, P&CN.

(ix) Caring responsibilities

Caring responsibilities are recognised under our Dependents Leave and Unpaid Special Leave policies. They are taken into account under our academic promotions personal circumstances arrangements.

King’s has extended support to carers in 2016, for example, the CCDF, PLF and new Parent and Carer’s Network. To date, participation has been low.

Action 23.1: Utilise the new Parent and Carers Network to understand further the needs of staff who are carers and how they might be better supported.

Action 23.2: Consider any recommended changes to policy/guidance and/or support mechanisms available.

Action 23.3: Explore the feasibility of a Carer’s Leave Scheme that would enable unpaid leave to be spread across a longer period of time then the leave itself, to minimise financial impacts and preserve continuous employment.

Action 23.4: Explore amendments to the flexible working policy and procedure to enable the consideration of a temporary reduction in working hours/temporary change to working patterns (for all staff, but envisaged to of particular benefit for staff managing care responsibilities).

Action 23.5: Gather feedback from the P&CN on the utility of inviting staff to complete a Carer’s Passport (a formal record of their care responsibilities and working arrangements) that can a) be shared with new managers to prevent them having to re-explain

122

122

circumstances and/or b) be used for equalities analysis – inc. career progression/promotion (if sufficient data is available).

Action 23.6: Ensure communications for current schemes emphasise the eligibility of carers (including development of Carer resources on Hub).

Action 23.7: Collect and publish examples of good practice in support of staff who are carers, starting with examples from our departmental submissions and volunteer cases from P&CN members.

5.6 ORGANISATION AND CULTURE

(i) Culture

King’s was an early signatory to the 2015 AS Charter, sharing the belief that: academia cannot reach its full potential unless it can benefit from the talents of all. This is emphasised in senior-level communications and D&I regularly features in cross-university emails from the Principal and his team (see extract from September 2015).

We have embedded the charter principles in three key ways, going beyond gender to recognise broader equalities issues, particularly around BME staff and students:

1. Recognising our responsibility to create an inclusive culture at every level

D&I is a cornerstone of our new Vision 2029, inclusion and open-minded tolerance or two of the guiding principles for its implementation

Faculty, directorate and university-level KPIs (to increase the representation of women in senior roles and BME staff) for D&I drive activity across the university

Bi-annual Strategy For Action meetings occur with Deans and Heads of Directorate to review our AS and REC action checklist

Achievements and challenges are reported to our termly DISG and USAT

We created an annual King’s Award for D&I in 2014

In 2016, we piloted inclusive leadership training facilitated by Pearn Kandola, involving self-evaluation and identification of tools to promote inclusive leadership. The content is now embedded in our Leadership Programmes.

We have six staff who are working full time on AS; six focus on broader D&I issues, all with associated non-pay budgets

123

123

The Senior Team and Council attended extensive unconscious bias training. This is now mandatory for staff involved in key decisions (SL and Grade7 and above), and 53% have attended (24% of women, 29% of men) and 35% from the non-target group, a total of over 1,700 staff.

Participants at unconscious bias are asked to sign up to actions to mitigate bias (figure 5.45). Sessions are evaluated and a 3 month follow up identifies behaviour change. Responses for 2015/16 (figure 5.44) show the training is highly effective, however we continue to review the content to increase impact.

Monthly Inclusive working sessions are delivered for staff/manager audiences, approximately 200 staff attend/year. Plans for mandatory on-line training covering core D&I messages, are being considered. (Action 24e.1)

An independent review of D&I at King’s was commissioned this year to help SLT review progress made and articulate a clear strategy to meet future D&I aspirations.

Figure 5.44: Evaluation results from our unconscious bias training held during 2015/16

Question: % Strongly Agree + Agree

My understanding of unconscious bias has improved 89

My ability to recognise its effect on my behaviour/practice has improved

88

My understanding of how to minimise the impact on my behaviour/practice has improved

81

Sabina Khanom & Principal Ed Byrne

Sabina Khanom won The Principal’s award

in 2015 for her support for IoPPN’s

successful AS Silver application

124

124

Figure 5.45: King’s Unconscious Bias tool-kit – training participants sign up to at least one action to mitigate bias

125

125

2. Promoting good practice, listening to staff and students and responding to their concerns

We have:

Created King’s Diversity Community (KDC), providing a voice for staff and opportunities to engage with D&I activity. KDC coordinated an events programme for Black History Month and holds monthly BME Fora for staff at each campus, highlighting issues at the DISG (of which the KDC chairs are members)

Ensured our senior governance body for D&I includes representation from the KDC, unions, student sabbatical and liberation officers. Students sit on relevant D&I working groups

Formed the D&I Champions Network, including D&I representatives and SAT Leads from across the university who meet termly and reports to DISG

Recruited five Student Ambassadors who support our student-focused diversity activity, promoting our schemes to students and gathering their views

Held two Open Meetings with the Principal and BME students to hear and respond to concerns around the BME attainment gap. Future termly meetings are planned

Ran a consultation with Trans staff and students to devise an action plan to improve their experiences

Instigated a university-wide audit of workspace allocated to men and women

Responded to feedback from student parents to form a working group to devise consistent policy / practice to support student parents at all levels

Circulated termly D&I newsletters to all staff, to share successes and best practice

Relaunched our LGBT+ Staff network and joined Stonewall

Participated in a number of cross-sector and national ventures to promote gender equality more widely, see 5.6x.

3. Tackling discrimination, celebrating and promoting equality of opportunity

We have:

Conducted Equal Pay audits

Increased the base level of Professorial pay, reducing our GPG

Held an annual programme of events to celebrate IWD and Black History Month (see 5.6x)

Combined our separate mentoring schemes for women and BME staff to launch the Diversity Mentoring Scheme

Put in place dedicated funds to support staff with caring responsibilities at key times in their careers and specific development programmes for women

Where possible introduced eligibility criteria for our schemes that recognise the intersection of race and gender

Our Student Ambassadors, Left to

right: Oyinkansola Dada, Echo

Watkins, Spencer Duvwiama, Naomi

Mwakamowo and Lydia Bevan.

126

126

Undertaken a wide-scale review of our R&S practices; taking forward an ambitious set of improvements

Developed nationally acknowledged It Stops Here campaign in collaboration with KCLSU to eliminate sexual harassment on campus. Further plans include mandatory on-line training for staff and students on sexual harassment.

Staff survey results:

We can see the impact of these in initiatives in our first bi-annual staff survey (figure 5.46):

Over 90% of staff feel D&I is central to King’s culture

Looking at broader indicators, responses were positive with some concerns around how decisions are made and communicated

Workloads and well-being were the greatest areas of concern; we are now monitoring these more closely

While there were no significant differences in responses by gender, there were more negative responses from LGBT, BME and disabled staff. We are addressing these through the DISG.

Survey responses are being considered centrally by OD under the Staff Experience banner as well as by faculties and directorates. The Staff Experience webpages (pictured) were launched in 2016. Content includes initiatives to promote well-being and a set of tool-kits such as the Considerate Communications Charter.

127

127

Figure 5.46: King’s staff survey results relating to culture, workloads and well-being

Male Female

D&I central to King’s culture

I am aware of King’s commitment to diversity 94% 93%

King’s treats people on their own merits regardless of gender/sex 89% 81%

King’s is equitable in terms of the treatment of transgender people

94% 93%

Broader cultural indicators

King’s is a good place to work 80% 84%

I feel part of King’s 76% 75%

I feel valued by King’s 52% 52%

I could explain to someone who doesn’t work here, what King’s is trying to achieve

69% 70%

I am actively seeking to leave the employment of King’s 23% 19%

I feel proud to work for King’s 83% 87%

I would recommend King’s to a friend as a place to work 71% 75%

The Senior Management Team listen and respond to the views of staff

39% 40%

There are opportunities for me to feed my views upwards in King’s

53% 53%

I am confident my ideas or suggestions will be welcomed / listened to / considered

48% 51%

Workloads/well-being

I feel I have had to put in a lot of extra time in the last 12 months to meet the demands of my workload

76% 70%

I find my current workload too much and I am struggling to cope 47% 45%

I feel King’s is interested in my well-being 52% 56%

King’s provides good support to help me balance my work and personal commitments

51% 56%

I am aware of the well-being support systems available to staff within King’s

50% 55%

I feel safe and secure in my working environment 84% 87%

Action 24h: Continue to roll out basket of interventions around the Staff Experience.

Action 1.1: Continue analysing staff survey responses by the intersection of gender and race and use focus groups to test findings.

Action 1.2: Develop the staff survey analysis tool to enable future intersectional responses to be analysed by job category (PS, research, academic).

Action 1.3: Develop future REC surveys to collect responses by gender.

Action 24a.1: Create an online repository for all departmental Champions to update the AS/D&I Good Practice Matrix with new/innovative practices and impact and promote

128

128

widely.

Action 24a.2: Continue to invite PS and academic D&I Champions to present local good practice initiatives at termly Network meetings.

Action 24a.3: Survey Champions to understand changing levels of confidence in approaching and implementing D&I ‘change’ interventions.

Action 24b: Augment the annual AS award celebration event (hosted by the Principal) to also celebrate i) new/ innovative departmental policy/practice ii) the winner of the King’s award and iii) key D&I achievements across the university.

Action 24c.1: Disseminate and operationalise the recommendations of Pearn Kandola’s D&I review.

Action 24c.2: Develop the wider equalities team into a Good Practice Mainstreaming’ Task Group; developing cross-faculty/directorate project teams to action common priority projects.

Action 24d.1: Develop an online Top Tips for Managers training tool to enable all managers to access this training (promoting widely including through D&I Newsletter and to part participants of D&I and UB training programmes). Build evaluation into the tool.

Action 24e.1: Roll out online UB training for all staff (building on that which is in development for students).

Action 24f: Promote inclusion (agenda, priorities, support structures, training and resources) at key induction touch point.

Action 24g: Ensure good practice D&I messages are embedded into all of our leadership and development programmes.

Action 24j.1: Conduct space audits across King’s (for academic and PS staff) and report on findings to USAT.

Action 24j.2: Develop guidelines for how space should be allocated). Action 24j.2: Develop guidelines for how space should be allocated (with need as the heaviest priority).

Action 24j.3: Develop a mechanism for monitoring space allocation in the future.

Action 24j.3: Develop a mechanism for monitoring space allocation in the future.

Action 24.k: HR System Project Team to continue to consider all AS/D&I system requests and integrate/accommodate/make alternative system recommendations to support the D&I agenda.

129

129

(ii) HR policies

We monitor consistency in application of relevant policies through our faculty/directorate HR Advisers; data is reviewed annually by the DISG.

Data on formal disciplinary and grievance cases, figures 5.47 and 5.48, show men were more likely to face a disciplinary (56%M, 41%F) and women were much more likely to take out a grievance (67%F, 29%M).

We have established a cross-university Staff Harassment Working Group, to review our provision (particularly for Research staff) and bring it into line with our offering for students.

To keep managers up to date on our policies we put in place Top Tips for managers sessions in 2015. Following feedback we are developing web-based tool-kits covering key policies/employment practices.

Where we identify differences in policy and practice, we have taken a project-based approach and set up working groups (with staff and student representation) to address the issues, e.g. the It Stops Here Campaign.

Figure 5.47: Disciplinary cases by gender*

2012-13 to Oct 2016-17

Gender %

Female 41%

Male 56%

Not Known 4%

Grand Total 100%

*including those disciplined as a consequence of a claim of harassment

Figure 5.48: Grievances by gender

(including those against whom a grievance was taken as a consequence of a claim of harassment) 2012-13 to Oct 2016-17

Gender %

Female 67%

Male 29%

Not Known 4%

Grand Total 100%

Action 25: Staff Harassment Working Group to devise and deliver an action plan to address staff harassment issues.

(iii) Proportion of heads of school/faculty/department by gender

We appoint senior leaders and managers through open application. For VP and Faculty leadership roles, open external recruitment widens the recruitment pool; In Law, this enabled the recent appointment of a female Dean. Where internal searches are adopted they are openly advertised. For example, in filling new Heads of School in SSPP, posts were internally advertised, candidates applied in writing, and were measured against criteria. Within A&S, Heads of Department are recruited on a three-year fixed-term basis. The IoPPN have adopted a similar approach and this is to be rolled out across the other Health Faculties

in 2017.

130

130

The proportion of female Heads of School/Faculty/Department are higher in CS. The proportion of women Heads is higher in STEMM than in AHSSBL due to the system of opposite gender deputies in AS accredited areas (figure 5.50). However AS actions are starting to make a difference in AHSSBL with a new female head of History.

Figure 5.49: Head of School/Faculty/Department by gender at King’s

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Women 44% (91) 45% (98) 43% (104) 40% (109) 42% (127)

Men 56% (115) 55% (121) 57% (136) 60% (164) 58% (174)

Figure 5.50: Proportions of Heads of School/Faculty/Department that are women, 2010/11 – 2014/15

Action 26.1: Defined internal leadership positions (e.g. HoD) to be ‘fixed term’ (not rotated).

Action 26.3: All Faculties to move to the good practice of appointing and developing deputies from under-represented groups.

Actions 16.9: Institute transparent and objective leadership competency frameworks and criteria.

Actions 16.11: Develop inclusive recommended guidance around the use of talent criteria and leadership competency frameworks.

131

131

(iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees

The three senior committees chaired by the Principal are RERC, SET and SMT.

RERC has a 40/60 female/male gender balance; the four academic Vice-Presidents have a 50/50 gender balance (figure 5.51).

SET and SMT membership includes Deans and PS Division Heads. The membership approaches 30%F when deputies are included (23% and 25% when excluded). Three senior female staff who were on SET/SMT left recently, causing an increase in the proportion of men. This has highlighted the importance of succession planning, and has provided the opportunity to brief head-hunters on our senior level diversity requirements.

(v) Representation of men and women on influential institution committees

Positions on senior committees are typically ex officio, e.g. Provost, Head of Finance, lay or student sabbatical officer.

CEC, Innovation and International Committees have what is approaching a good

gender balance (figure 5.51).

The gender balance has worsened over time for Academic Board and CRC.

Chairman’s Committee and Council include a large proportion of lay members, for whom it is a challenge to gather equal opportunities data, so figure 5.52 shows a

breakdown of the membership by staff, student and lay.

For Council, where members comprise 11 lay, seven staff and one student, it is still

difficult to draw conclusions as over 50% of the lay members are gender identity ‘Unknown’, although the staff profile, as with SET above has become more male over time.

For Chairman’s committee, which includes seven lay members and four staff, the staff profile has become more male over time and the lay membership is difficult to determine given the proportion of ‘Unknowns’.

Of the ten students involved in these senior committees in 2016/17, four are female and six male, this remains constant over the three years that students have been on

senior committees.

Head-hunters specialising in D&I are used to find appropriate lay candidates to fill vacancies. Within Faculties a system of fixed-term Heads of Department will increase the pool of candidates with experience of senior leadership and foster talent for future senior management roles.

We piloted an anonymous online form to collect equal opportunities data for lay Council members in 2016 with the aim of improving disclosure rates.

Action27.1: Roll out the system of deputies to other committees at King’s, expanding membership further as necessary to ensure appropriate gender-representation.

132

132

Action 27.2: Review UCL’s ‘step-change’ report and consider recommendations.

Action 27.3: Committee chairs to be accountable for the gender composition of their committees and report on gender balance to Chair of Council; with immediate/short-term strategies to be produced by committees with less than 30% female membership.

Action 27.4: Continue to use and perfect the online mechanism for collecting lay committee member equal opportunities data.

Action 27.5: Put targets in place for committee representation.

Figure 5.51: Representation of men and women on senior and influential committees

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Totals 16/17

Committee Female Male

Not Known Female Male



Not Known

Academic Board 41% 57% 2% 36% 64% 0% 40% 60% 0% 39% 61% 0% 49

Chairman's Committee

25% 50% 25% 18% 27% 55% 27% 73% 0% 27% 55% 18% 11

College Assessment Board

33% 63% 4% 56% 44% 0% 56% 44% 0% - - - 32 (15/16)

College Education Committee (CEC)

35% 55% 10% 46% 54% 0% 46% 54% 0% 41% 59% 0% 29

College Research Committee (CRC)

43% 57% 0% 41% 59% 0%

44% 56% 0% 37% 63% 0% 19

Council 29% 38% 33% 15% 25% 60% 33% 61% 6% 26% 47% 26% 19

Innovation Committee

- - - - - - - - - 41% 52% 7% 29

International Committee

- - - - - - - - - 41% 56% 3% 32

PCT/PET/SET Without/with deputies

40% 60% 0% 46% 54% 0% 32% 68% 0% 23%/ 29.5%

76%/ 70.5%

0% 25

Revenue and Expenditure Committee (RERC)

43% 57% 0% 7

SMT Without/with deputies

- - - - - - - - - 25%/ 30%

75%/ 70%

0% 35

Figure 5.52: Representation of men and women on senior and influential committees by staff, lay and student

Lay

member staff

Committee Female Male Female Male

Not

Known Female Male Female Male

Not

Known Female Male Female Male Female Male

Not

Known Female Male

Not

Known Female Male Female Male

Not

Known

Academic Board 42% 58% 0% 0% 100% 33% 67% 50% 50% 40% 60% 50% 50% 0% 100% 0% 36% 64% 0% 60% 40%

Chairman's Committee 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 40% 60% 100% 40% 60% 17% 83% 0% 25% 75% 0% 29% 43% 29%

College Assessment Board 35% 65% 0% 0% 100% 56% 44% 50% 50% / 57% 43% 50% 50% / / / / / / / / / / /

College Education Committee 39% 61% 0% 0% 100% 47% 53% 33% 67% / 44% 56% 67% 33% / / / 41% 59% 0% / / / / /

College Research Committee 43% 57% 40% 60% 50% 50% / 44% 56% 50% 50% / / / 37% 63% 0% / / / / /

Council 38% 63% 23% 23% 54% 43% 57% 0% 100% 100% 43% 57% 100% 0% 20% 70% 10% 29% 71% 0% 0% 100% 27% 27% 45%

Innovation Committee / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 44% 52% 4% 33% 67% 0% 0% 100%

International Committee / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 42% 55% 3% 0% 100% / / /

PCT/PET/SET 40% 60% / / / 46% 54% / / / 32% 68% / / / / / 32% 68% 0% / / / / /

Revenue and Expenditure

Committee (RERC) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 43% 57% 0% / / / / /

Senior Management Team / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 29% 71% 0% / / / / /

Grand Total 41% 59% 13% 26% 62% 45% 55% 40% 60% 100% 42% 58% 58% 42% 15% 71% 15% 35% 64% 1% 40% 60% 18% 30% 53%

Lay memberstudent staff student Lay member student

2016-17

staff Lay member staff

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

135

135

(vi) Committee workload

We recognise the need to avoid committee overload, alongside efforts to achieve balanced membership. We do this by broadening the base of women who participate, to include, for example, postdoctoral or student representation.

Faculties have individualised workload models which capture administrative responsibilities. Staff are invited to raise committee membership as part of PDR.

(vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures

Where a new policy or procedure will have a major equalities impact, we undertake a formal

EIA. Chairs of senior committees and HR Advisers are aware of their obligations in this area and can pinpoint when an EIA is required. Examples include:

In 2014, as part of a restructuring exercise leading to the departure of 40 staff in the Health Faculties, we conducted an EIA, this ensured that the process occurred with reference to AS principles.

Our recent EIA of R&S has led to new innovative initiatives that are being rolled out across the university.

Action 24a.4: Develop a user-friendly EIA prompt sheet.

Action 24a.5: Committee Chairs to provide DISG with summary EIAs relating to all key decisions and (where appropriate) policy changes. DISG to make further recommendations about necessary EIAs where appropriate.

(viii) Workload model

The staff survey indicated that male and female staff have concerns around workload (section 5.6i). In addition to broader actions, we are addressing this through clear and transparent workload allocation models for Academic and Research staff:

Workload planning (which covers teaching, pastoral, administrative and outreach

responsibilities) is normally done at faculty level. Each faculty has its own model which

is seeks to apply consistently.

In FoLSM, as the MBBS programme draws on staff from multiple faculties, they have a central teaching database. Workload is reviewed using database reports and records of grant activity. Action is taken where imbalances are identified. We are looking to build on this and other existing good practice.

Workload allocation is reviewed at PDR.

Action: 24i.1 All leadership roles to have D&I KPIS as part of their role deliverables.

Action 24i.2 Produce a proposal and suggested plan for incorporating D&I into the job descriptions of all staff for review at the Feb 2017 meeting of DISG.

136

136

(ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings

University committees are timetabled in the core hours of 9am-5pm. Many AS faculties and divisions only hold events between 10-4pm to allow for school drop-offs and pickups.

Social events are often connected to evening lectures and organisers are asked to provide details well in advance to ensure that carers can make appropriate arrangements.

(x) Visibility of role models

Events

King’s holds many events and does not keep a central list of speakers. Faculty and Divisional AS audits indicate the need for diversity amongst speakers is well understood. Where panels comprise only one gender, these are often female-only events. We have celebrated International Women’s Day since 2014.

In 2014, we had an inspiring keynote from Paul Walton (University of York, departmental Gold), figure 5.53.

In 2015, Rev. Rose Hudson (Chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the first female bishop) focused conversations around intersectionality, figure 5.54.

In 2016, Sabrina Clarke from EY, led a discussion accelerating gender parity, based on EY’s Fast Forward report published for IWD. The Principal introduced the day which was filmed and shared widely across our community, figure 5.55.

Figure 5.53: Images from International Women’s Day 2014, Inspiring Change

Figure 5.54: Images from International Women’s Day, 2015, Encouraging effective action for advancing & recognising women

137

137

Figure 5.55: Images from International Women’s Day, 2016, Pledge for parity

In addition, faculties organise their own gender equality event programmes, including the IoPPN’s Inspiring Women speaker’s series.

NMS hold a Women in Science week to commemorate Ada Lovelace Day, (since 2014). The 2015 event featured Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock (pictured), talking about her inspirations and role models.

Professor Peter Main, Head of Physics gave a keynote lecture at NMS’ IWD 2016 celebrations: The land of the blue and pink: why girls don’t do physics and boys don’t do drama?

King’s also hosts external events and reaches out to other partners. In October 2016, we invited colleagues from King’s, industry and HE to a special In conversation event with former Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

We hosted ECU’s AS 10th anniversary celebrations in 2015.

We shared our learning and good practice interventions with the University of Southern Denmark.

King’s sponsored the Women’s Equality Party’s first networking event, bringing influential supporters to meet party founders, Sandi Toksvig, Catherine Mayer and Sophie Walker, hear party pledges and become founding members, 2015.

The Global Diversity Council (GDC), runs women’s symposiums around the globe. King’s supported the launch of the London Women in Leadership Symposium in 2015, showcasing the experiences of senior role models from industry. Due to its success, we agreed to sponsor this on an annual basis, in particular so PS women at King’s can benefit from attendance (figure 5.56).

138

138

Figure 5.56: London Women in Leadership Symposium Poster, December 2016

Imagery and materials

King’s buildings are named after our alumni and are not as balanced as we would like. We are working hard on improvements:

New digital signage allows us to showcase a broader range of role models (figure 5.57). These, along with the images on our main website and promotional materials, are

139

139

reviewed regularly to ensure we meet are meeting our own high standards of celebrating diversity.

Since 2012-13, faculties have been celebrating women’s success in science through imagery on their websites, in their corridors and social spaces.

FoLSM hosts a Women in Science website with a dedicated section for women scientists in the news.

The IoPPN has a prominent display of photographs of female academics as does NMS.

In 2014, we created the Meet the Professors photographic frieze on our main Strand and Guy’s campuses (featuring 81 women). This along with the accompanying website allow us to share the journeys and achievements of over 200 female professors. The images and bios were updated in 2016 (figure 5.58).

The Autumn 2016 Issue of the King’s Alumni Magazine InTouch included a feature on Women Leadership and Gender Equality, focusing on the underrepresentation of women in key decision-making bodies and the steps King’s is taking to redress the balance (pictured).

Image: King’s Alumni Magazine ‘In-Touch’

Figure 5.57: Breakdown of male & female figures featured in window displays at King’s, September 2016

Men Women Mixed groups

Digital Display

(alumni)

6 3 N/A

Digital Display

(general)

7 16 8

Individuals Occurrences Individuals Occurrences

Static Displays

(alumni)

37 49 10 15 N/A

140

140

Figure 5.58: A collection of images from the Meet the Professors displays

Online resource – including full bios

King’s Building, Strand Campus

New Hunt's House, Guy's Campus

Baroness Sally Morgan (left) and Professor

Evelyn Welch (right) launch the Meet the

Professors photographic frieze at an event

to celebrate AS award successes and the

female professors in the frieze.

141

141

Action 28.1: Refresh Meet the Professors installation and supporting web pages every two years and identify more locations for an expanding display.

Action 28.2: Expand installation to include senior professional service women.

Action 28.3: If the BME representation of women at these grades (Professor, Senior PS) is poor, include images of women who have achieved other leadership accolades and awards

Action 28.4: Develop guidelines for all campuses re the gender composition of imagery on display.

(xi) Outreach activities

King’s operates a wide range of outreach and engagement programmes coordinated by our WP Team. These include Realising Opportunities (RO), a national partnership to promote fair access and social mobility; the K+ programme, a two-year programme to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds to apply to King’s; and King’s scholars working with students in Years 7-9 in local boroughs.

We have an Extended Medical Degree programme designed for students from non-selective state schools who are committed to a medical career but may not be eligible for conventional medical degree courses.

Initiatives are underway in NMS where a dedicated Outreach Office works to bring women into STEMM subjects.

Funding is made available to staff to

undertake their own WP activities.

Our WP activities engage with over 12,000 learners annually, and all programmes are evaluated. High

intensity programmes show higher rates

Realising Opportunities Students, Summer 2016: Participating in a pilot work experience scheme at King’s where they shadowed a science-based PhD tutor as they went about their research and lab work for a week.

Meet the Professors Refresh 2016

142

142

of participation by female students (figure 5.59)

With the exception of K+ and RO, there are also more women than men involved in delivering WP activities, through a focus on providing female role models (figure 5.60)

Contribution to this important activity is formally recognised through promotion.

143

143

Figure 5.59: Students engaged in King’s Widening Participation activities by gender

Female Male % Female

K+ (2016-18) 201 86 70%

K+ (2015-17) 194 86 69%

Sutton Trust (2016) 86 21 80%

Realising Opportunities (2015-17) 41 26 61%

King’s Scholars 137 100 58%

Figure 5.60: Staff and PhD students involved in delivering Widening Participation activities by gender

Female Male % Female

WP staff 12 4 75%

Academic Staff using WP funding 13 4 76%

PhD WP tutors 10 4 71%

K+ / Realising Opportunities 8 7 53%

Sutton Trust 6 7 46%

(xii) Leadership

We celebrate faculty AS successes and facilitate the sharing of good practice through our termly bulletins (pictured below), website, networks and events which recognise the intersectionality of gender and race.

We are working on STEMM renewals and supporting AHSSBL submissions following

our successful GEM pilot. Timeframes are in place to ensure all units gain AS recognition at faculty/departmental level. PS Directorates have requested that ECU extend the Charter Mark to allow them to apply.

Our USAT will continue to be led by the Principal and Baroness Morgan. Meeting termly it will review progress at institutional and faculty level; Deans and Directors will report on their D&I KPIs and local action plans.

We have invested in D&I Teams in two Health Faculties, across Arts & Sciences, and centrally. Many divisions also have local PT posts to support AS activity.

FoLSM has established a mock panel process which other faculties can utilise. Online

resources and tool-kits have been developed for use at faculty level and shared with PS Directorates.

We have refined our central data production process and our AS requirements fed into the tender for the new HR System.

144

144

In Spring 2017 we will provide all faculties and directorates with key D&I data packs to support AS activity.

To launch AS in the AHSSBL, King’s and LSE collaborated on Inclusive and Intersectional: Insights into the New Athena SWAN Processes. Attended by over 60 people, feedback was overwhelming positive, 100% of respondents recommended the event to a colleague (pictured).

WORD COUNT SECTION FIVE: 7,803

Screen shot of October 2016 Black History Month issue of our D&I newsletter for all staff

145

145

6 Supporting trans people


(i) Current policy and practice

Our Trans Equality Statement and Procedures, in place since 2010, provide guidance on relevant topics including arrangements for supporting a member of staff/student to transition and providing the option for this to be handled by the D&I Team. We are proactively working to improve our practice:

Trans awareness issues are covered in our monthly Inclusive working sessions for staff and managers

We have been collecting staff data on Gender Reassignment since 2012-13 and this indicates that approximately 2% of staff self-identify as having a gender identity that is different from that assigned at birth.

We provide facilities such as gender neutral toilets at each campus, and these are to being extended.

Health Centre staff have a Pride in Practice award and have undertaken extensive training on Trans issues.

Queer@King’s group (established in 2003), the LGBT student society and the King's LGBT+ Staff Network run academic and social events, promote an inclusive environment and provide a channel for consultation. The LGBT+ Network held a well-attended launch in February 2016, including a speaker from the Trans community.

Inappropriate or negative attitudes would be addressed through our bullying and harassment procedures and to date no cases have been raised.

(ii) Monitoring

We monitor impact through bullying and harassment reports; however this may not

address unspoken negative attitudes.

In 2016 we commissioned an external consultant to undertake qualitative research with Trans staff and students (including an online survey and focus groups), in order to identify how we could better meet their needs; review our existing policies and procedures; and deliver training to key groups of staff.

Although relatively small numbers of staff participated, it provided valuable insights, including the fact that over 60% of respondents did not feel staff were informed about Trans issues.

While Trans students are self-identifying, Trans staff do not feel comfortable to do so. We need to find ways to build this trust and awareness within our community

During November 2016 we consulted on the report and recommendations, to help

set priorities.

146

146

(iii) Further work

The report identified the following priorities which are recorded in section 25a-g of the action plan.

Actions 29a.1-7: Improve data capture and monitoring to better understand the needs of trans staff and students.

Actions 29b: Ensure accessibility of trans related information for trans staff and

students.

Actions 29c.1-4: Ensure mutual support structure for trans staff and students.

Actions 29d.1-3: Ensure staff are able to respond appropriately to the needs of trans

staff and students (through training and awareness raising).

Actions: 29e.1-5 Ensure our policies and practices are inclusive of trans staff and students.

Actions: 29f.1-6 Ensure the provision of inclusive facilities & services – including toilets, sports, leisure and health facilities.

Actions: 29g.1-2 Ensure our work around an inclusive curriculum incorporates trans.

WORD COUNT SECTION SIX = 346

Meet the Professors

147

147

.Further information


In preparing this submission, we drew on our own academic expertise in gender equality:

We conducted and published an analysis of the AS process and its impacts in the BMJ.2 Due to the findings, in particular those relating to the negative impact of the demands of AS work on women's progression. We have invested in PS support to lessen the burden of data collection and organisation for AS and have deliberately drawn on existing D&I networks in creating this application.

Professor Janet Walsh, HR Management, helped us understand the cause of our GPG and advised us on relevant actions; the most important cause of our GPG is the large number

of women in lower-level roles (due to our female Researcher community and Grade 4 PS female staff) and that is where we are targeting many of our developmental actions.

The 2015 Leadership Foundation report3, written by Director of KLI, Kelly Coate helped

us understand the female perceptions of indicators of esteem and career planning and has informed our PDR training and Leadership Programmes.

Through Professor Peter Main (Head of Physics), we have partnered with the Institute of Physics, to pilot Opening Doors, a schools programme to address the lack of gender parity in subject choices.

Through our PLuS alliance partnership with University of New South Wales, Australia and

Arizona State University, issues of gender equality are being addressed at a cross-

institutional level. We have been invited to advise the University of New South Wales on their application to the Australian AS.

In undertaking this submission, we have found that the process itself (rather than this document) created the time, space and focus to ensure that we had an institutional-level discussion about creating a truly inclusive community at King’s. Our research tells us that there are no simple, single solutions to achieving gender parity. It is the responsibility of everyone, particularly those in positions of authority, to be self-aware and honest about the challenges we need to address and the actions we need to take to ensure that women, and BME women in particular, are successful at King’s.

WORD COUNT SECTION SEVEN = 364

Meet the Professors

Action plan

2 Caffrey et al., Gender equity programmes in academic medicine: a realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes BMJ Open 2016, doi http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/9/e012090). 3 Coate, K., Mid-career Academic Women: Strategies, Choices, and Motivation

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/9/e012090

KING’S COLLEGE LONDON SILVER ACTION PLAN

Dec 2016 - Nov 2020

A glossary of key terms can be found at the end of this document.

Action / Objective

Action taken to date/impact at Nov 16

Future planned action Owner /Timescale

Success measure

PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTION

1. Understand intersectional differences in staff experience (Page 24/127)

2015 staff survey responses* analysed by the intersection of gender and race improving our awareness of identifiable intersectional differences. BME women allocated priority places on key AS support schemes increasing their participation (by up to 20%) across different schemes (GAMS, Aurora, leadership programmes) (since 2015). Focus groups with BME men & women

1.1 Continue analysing staff survey responses by the intersection of gender and race and use focus groups to test findings. 1.2 Explore the feasibility of developing the staff survey analysis tool to enable future intersectional responses to be disaggregated and analysed by job category (PS, research, academic). (Next staff surveys anticipated to run Nov 2017 & 2020). 1.3 Develop future REM surveys to collect responses by gender.

ASPM May 2018, 2020 ASPM & OD Engagement Manager Jan 2018 D&I Manager Jan 2018

Intersectional differences identified, understood and discussed with staff and senior stakeholders. Responsive actions developed that improve the experience of BME women as measured through staff surveys and focus groups.

Action / Objective



Success measure

academics/researchers (throughout 2016). *Results used to inform AS actions (throughout plan) and/or REM plan, as appropriate.

2. Ensure future membership of USAT enables swift action that is informed by local-level experience (Page 26 / 127)

USAT is chaired by the Principal and member of Council (since 2016) and membership comprises senior staff across King’s with resources to take action (since 2014).

2.1 Extend membership to include academic, research, teaching, technical and PS representatives from across AHSSBL, STEMM and CS, to include early and mid-career staff, 50:50 of whom will be men: women and greater than 30% of whom will be BME (to be drawn from the D&I Champion’s Network). 2.2 Rotate membership of USAT every two years to ensure distribution of workloads. 2.3 Introduce a system of deputies’ mid-way in year 2 to aid succession planning.

Principal & ASPM Jan-Mar 2017 Jan-Mar 2019 Jan-Mar 2018

AS actions are delivered on time and/or developed further to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose. Anonymous survey of SAT members reveals no conflict in terms of workload in relation to AS commitments. Deputies assume full member status in year 3 and momentum with AS action progress in maintained.

3. Ensure all staff are updated on key AS developments throughout the year

Good communication mechanisms have been in place since 2014 and will be developed annually.

3.1 Post AS action plan online and update termly. 3.1 Include AS updates (including departmental updates) in termly D&I newsletters (emailed to all staff termly).

ASPM Mar, June, Oct, annually D&I Coordinator

The majority of staff are aware of King’s commitment to diversity: >90% of staff continue to confirm this in biannual staff surveys (2017, 2019). Baseline: 94% staff awareness in 2015.

Action / Objective



Success measure

(Page 26) 3.2 Post links to online AS updates on student D&I pages. 3.3 Provide updates at termly D&I Champions meetings. 3.4 Provide updates to Deans and Directors at termly SFA meetings. 3.5 Provide reports to SLT and to Council annually (or more frequently if required) and to DISG termly. 3.6 All Deans and Directors to ensure that D&I is communicated through their departments.

D&I Coordinator ASPM ASPM & D&I Manager ASPM Oct annually Ongoing

Faculty AS surveys confirm that >90% of staff are aware of university-level AS initiatives.

4. Foster existing CS engagement with AS (Page 26)

A number of CS departments would like to formally submit AS applications but are currently not eligible to do so. D&I data task group established to develop improved D&I MS reporting tools.

4.1 Explore a streamlined, internal AS/D&I application process (building on the SFA checklist) to ensure CS departments remain engaged and receive internal recognition for AS progress. 4.2 Develop more user-friendly AS data templates and analytics for departments, building-in robust data quality checks before any data is released.

USAT, SVP Operations supported by ASPM & D&I Manager May 2018– 2019 May – Sep 2017

A formal internal mechanism is in place for to recognise and reward CS progress and good gender equality practice SATs report that the new templates are helpful and make data analysis more efficient. SATs report that they are confident in the AS data analytics they receive and that local data

Action / Objective



Success measure

collection systems are no longer required.

5. Support retention of post docs with transferrable skills by setting up a redeployment process (Page 44)

CRSD are investigating whether Talent Bank (King’s employment agency for temporary staff) can deliver a redeployment system for research staff/postdocs on FTCs. This will be piloted in FoLSM. A new HR System is currently being developed to support an automated redeployment process (to include CV pools and automatic contract expiry notifications)

5.1 Develop formal policy, procedure and expected practices around the redeployment of research staff. 5.2 Explore an interim redeployment process (building on any opportunities presented through CRSD’s investigations with Talent bank). 5.3 Roll out the redeployment functionality of the new HR System across all faculties when this becomes available.

Provost (Health), Provost (A&S) Supported by HR Policy Team Mar – Jun 2017 Mar – Jun 2017 Nov 2018 – Mar 2020

An interim system is in place by end of 2017, with a fully operational system (using the functionality that will become available) by May 2019.

6. Further explore and respond to gendered reasons for leaving King’s (Page 79)

Online exit surveys introduced in 2014 to collect more qualitative feedback. Since then, these data have been analysed at faculty-level for AS purposes. Aggregated university-level analysis conducted by job category in 2016 for the institutional submission.

6.1 Analyse exit survey data further to explore the qualitative statements left by staff citing ‘management of College/Faculty/Division’ to determine whether these offer useful insights that allow the development of specific actions. 6.2 Continue to analyse exit survey data biannually and begin to conduct intersectional analysis; develop response actions to newly emerging trends as appropriate.

AS PM Sep 2018, 2020 Deans, Directors supported by AS PM Oct 2018, 2020

Action plan is responsive to emerging trends from exit surveys.

Action / Objective



Success measure

Exit survey response rates have increased over 2 years.

6.3 Consider how faculties will flag any issues of concern in the interim periods. 6.4 SATS to continue to foster engagement with online exit survey. 6.5 Faculties and Directorates to foster engagement with surveys through SFA.

AS PM May 2017 SAT leads, Ongoing Deans, Directors supported by ASPM & D&I Manager, Biannually

7a. Further investigate existing pay differentials at King’s (Page 58)

GPG analyses (inc professorial GPGs by faulty) and 2 equal pay audits conducted (2012 & 2016) for all staff across university. Increased understanding of underlying issues, informing a range of targeted actions.

Detailed additional pay analyses conducted in Law to identify and respond to pay patterns in the professoriate and in IoPPN to identify pay patterns for all staff groups (2015-2016).

7a.1 Carry out further pay analyses in relation to the allocation of additional payments (e.g. bonuses, responsibility payments) and length of service, for all staff by Faculty/Directorate and

7a.2 Present findings to USAT for discussion and action as appropriate.

7a.3 Repeat pay gap analyses and equal pay audits every two years

7a.4 Benchmark our GPGs against similar organisations nationally, within and outside the sector.

HRRC Jan– Aug 2017 Oct 2017 May 2018, 2020 Jul 2018, 2020

Information is available to support the development of more targeted actions to improve our GPGs

Action / Objective



Success measure

7a.5 Continue to analyse all staff recognition and reward payment annually, by gender.

Mar, annually

7b. Continue to develop mechanisms to reduce the GPG (Page 58)

KPI’s introduced to increase the representation of women professors (2015) and women in senior PS roles (2016) and Deans set faculty targets for increasing % women professors (2015).

Professorial base-pay minimum increased for men and women (2016) reducing professoriate GPG by 0.3% - 8% to 7.7%.

HR began providing managers making professorial pay decisions with salary information (internal faculty relativities/external benchmarks) asking them to consider any noticeable equality trends. (2016).

7b.1 Support the target of increasing the representation of senior women though SFA and annual planning meetings.

7b.2 Explore opportunities for developing a consistent and transparent university approach to PS recognition pay (including communications) across the university with Deans / Directors.

7b.3 Develop a good practice guide to negotiating and setting personal salaries. 7b.4 In preparation for the recruitment to the new Business & Management (B&M) dept. (SSPP) and Engineering dept. (NMS) ensure a robust inclusive pay strategy is in place to mitigate the anticipated increase in the pay gap between existing and new staff 7b.5 Directorates to establish formal mechanisms to consider the allocation of discretionary pay awards at all levels and to report annually on the

Deans, Directors, Head of SP&A supported by ASPM, D&I Manager, Mar annually HRRC Mar-May 2017 Apr 2017 Provost (Arts & Sciences) Head of B&M, Dean of NMS, Jan-Dec 2017 Directors, Deans May-Jul, 2017

Structural are developed and reviewed annually. Future staff survey responses to: “I feel fairly paid in relation to other staff at King’s doing a similar job” increases by 10% in 2017 and a further 10% in 2019 for staff on all job categories – on top of 2015 baselines: (63% of men and 61% of women agreed) and no gendered differences in responses emerge. Pay gaps between existing and new staff in NMS and SSPP are below 5%.

Action / Objective



Success measure

Health Faculties have agreed formal mechanisms for considering discretionary pay awards are currently drafting ToRs.

breakdown of male and female recipients of discretionary pay awards to DISG.

7c. Provide staff with transparent pay information (Page 59 / 93)

Findings (including causes and strategies to reduce our GPG) published on internal and externally facing web pages (2015).

Pay & benefits web pages further developed (2016) to improve pay transparency including information on how pay is determined, how it can change, and what other benefits are available to staff. Web pages have had over 4000 hits in just over 3 months.

7c.1 Publish details of processes by which pay awards were made in 2015/16 outlining the scrutiny and equality considerations (for all staff, inc. Professors) including details of award outcomes (anonymised) by gender / versus eligible pools, as well as anonymised examples of the ‘exceptional’ contributions staff have made to merit their awards. 7c.2 Publish university-level outcomes annually (after all staff recognition pay awards schemes have concluded and before the next PDR and recognition pay round commences – to remind people of the equalities issues in the lead up to subsequent rounds). 7c.3 Equality analysis of exceptional pay awards to be presented to DISG in autumn of each year,

broken down by grade and FT/PT status. 7c.4 Develop University-level communications plan to launch How can pay change web pages to

Provost (Health), Provost (Arts & Sciences) supported by HRRC Feb 2017 HRRC Apr annually HRRC Oct annually HRRC Mar 2017

See 7.b re staff survey measures. Feedback left on the ‘how can pay change’ web pages shows that >70% of staff find these pages helpful and the comments left by staff on how to improve these web pages are acted upon, as appropriate.

Action / Objective



Success measure

increase understanding/transparency of how pay negotiations/regrading may occur. 7c.5 Continue to develop the Understanding Pay web pages based on staff feedback/needs.

7c.6 Run staff fora to explain pay and promotion.

HRRC Mar & Oct annually HRRC May - Jul 2017

8. Explore the nature of gendered differences in the use of FTCs (Page 72)

Internal report/analysis conducted in Nov 2016.

8.1 Use report findings to investigate whether the higher proportion of women on FTCs in because men are more likely to move from fixed-term to open-ended contracts or if men are more likely to be placed on an open-ended contract in the first place. 8.2 Consider and develop appropriate response strategies/actions as necessary.

HR Policy Director Dec 2016 USAT Mar 2017

We have a clear understanding of the underlying issues and relevant actions in place to address these by the end of 2017.

SUPPORTING & ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERS

9. Continue to roll out inclusive transformation of R&S processes and practices and promote to help address the

2014/15 R&S data shows that women are disproportionally less likely to be selected for senior roles (academic & PS) at interview than men, despite healthy applicant and shortlist numbers.

9.1 Introduce a questionnaire for interviewees (successful and unsuccessful) to gather data on their experiences 16/17

9.2 Pilot blind shortlisting for PS roles with select departments (those with sufficient levels of recruitment to allow for meaningful impact evaluation/to include a mixture of

D&I Manager May 2017 D&I, Recruitment & Hiring managers May – Dec 2017

Appointment outcomes for women applying for senior level positions improves by 10% each year for each staff category until outcomes reflect shortlist pool (by Sep 2017 for SLs and equivalent PS) and Sept 2018 for Professors and equivalent PS.

Action / Objective



Success measure

disproportionately low number of offers made to women following interview for senior-level appointment (Page 82 / 90)

Mandatory UB training for staff most likely to be involved in R&S panels/decision making (since 2014). 51% of current staff in target group, trained. University expectation that panels should have at least one man and one woman. In 2014/15 higher incidence of all-female panels compared to all male (58% compared to 42%). Very weak (not statistically significant) correlation found between % of balanced panels and proportion of women appointed. Good Practice R&S guide promoted to panel members on how to mitigate hiring bias.

2014/15 R&S trends and process improvements discussed with DISG, PS

professionalisms) and parallel evaluation and sequential interviewing.

9.3 Deliver large-scale recruitment & selection training, with a focus on evidence-based inclusive decision-making methodologies

9.4 Recruit and train anti-bias specialists to sit on senior interviewing panels. Pool to include a diverse range of staff, which also presents the opportunity for departments to improve the gender and BME composition of their panels, without overloading few departmental staff. 9.5 Continue to monitor the usage of and

discourage straight to contract appointments.

9.6 Conduct further research to understand factors which impact on recruitment to senior roles in order to maximise opportunities to use robust methodologies and control for bias as part of these campaigns.

9.7 When sufficient R&S data is available to

conduct meaningful trend-analysis, extend to include intersectionality, discipline/

professionalisms, external versus internal-only campaigns, appointment patterns by panel composition and also examine whether any roles

D&I & Recruitment May – Oct 2017 D&I team May 2017-18 D&I Manager May annually IDA D&I Lead Sep annually ASPM & IDA D&I Lead Sep annually

All subsequent staff surveys continue to return >90% agreement with the following statement: I feel King’s acts fairly, regardless of ethnic background, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, age, marriage and civil partnership, or pregnancy and maternity/paternity with regard to staff recruitment

Action / Objective



Success measure

Managers, D&I Champions Network, A&S SMT (2016) New ‘inclusive’ candidate and hiring manager’s packs developed, incorporating D&I process improvement nudges.

are offered to women but are then declined by them.

9.8 Present findings and recommendations to USAT and DISG annually

D&I Manger, AS PM Oct annually

10. Ensure our induction provision is thorough, helpful and engaging for all staff (Page 82 / 83 / 91)

Termly Welcome to King’s induction sessions were refreshed and redeveloped based on feedback from new starters in 2016. ‘New Colleagues’ webpages developed (2016).

10.1 Regularly review content of induction, with Deans and Directors to ensure its suitability for new staff and develop the central New Colleagues web pages to ensure they provide staff with as much useful (and easy to navigate content) as the information provided on the A&S’ Getting Started

at King’s welcome pages.

10.2 Use targeted invites for staff groups least likely to attend (currently academics). 10.3 Update the Welcome Session feedback forms to enable feedback on the usefulness of the New Colleagues web pages to be collected. 10.4 Compare new starter data with Welcome Session participation data to determine true take-up figures for different staff categories.

Deans, Directors supported by Talent Manager, HR May, annually Provosts supported by Talent Manager, HR Ongoing Talent Manager, HR Mar 2017 Talent Manager, HR Sept biannually

>80% of Welcome Session attendees feedback that this is helpful on an annual basis >80% of users of the New Colleagues web pages find these helpful Greater attendance at Welcome Session by academics (to mirror PS uptake)

Action / Objective



Success measure

11. Ensure good practice around academic promotion is maintained each year (Page 88)

The academic promotion application/success rates of women are now comparable to men Good practice guidance on supporting the progression/promotion of staff and supporting video resources developed online (including interviews with recently promoted staff). (2014).

Workshop on "Teaching Excellence in the University Promotions Process” increased successful Education-led applications (10 in 2015/16). Faculty promotions committees in situ. University and faculty promotions roadshows/workshops (since 2013).

11.1 Continue annual programme of university and faculty-level roadshows/promotions workshops

11.2: Reinforce message (in annual promotions communications, at promotions roadshows and during PDRs), that formally declared personal circumstances are considered as part of promotions

11.3 Reinforce (in training/documents), the need to develop promotions plans as part of PDR with

all staff regardless of working pattern and clinical status

11.4: Collect and publish case studies of successful promotions of staff that are PT

11.5: Conduct intersectional analysis of academic promotions data annually for presentation to

DISG in June each year.

11.6: Collate in-depth Faculty AS survey responses to measure and monitor staff’s understanding of the promotions process.

Deans and Directors, D&I/Wider equalities teams May-Jul annually Provosts, Deans, PDR Reviewers May – Jul annually Chair, Academic Staff Committees, HR Policy & Talent Manager May 2017 HRPA & ASPM, May-Aug 2017 IDA D&I Analyst Sep annually VP (Education) and ASPM May 2018, 2020

Promotion success rates are proportionally the same for both men and women year on year. Staff survey results in 2017 show a 10% increase in men and women academics agreeing that a personal development plan was agreed as part of their PDR and a further 10% increase in 2019. (On top of 2015 staff survey baseline of 71% male and 72% female academics having agreed a plan). Biannual faculty AS surveys show that >90% staff consider promotions criteria to be transparent (recent FoLSM baseline from this year suggests that 20% of staff disagree that criteria are transparent).

Action / Objective



Success measure

Promotions criteria redeveloped to take personal circumstances into account. Policy on extenuating circumstances for ‘out of round’ promotion. Equalities data for few ‘out of round’ promotions reported along with formal promotions, each year.

12.Understand how our REF returns compare to national benchmarks (Page 89)

15% more eligible women at King’s were returned to REF compared to RAE. Analysis shows that the same proportion of eligible men and women were submitted to REF.

When HESA data becomes available nationally, conduct a benchmarking study of gender return rates to REF

Head of Research Policy & Operations TBC, 2017

National benchmarking data is used to inform King’s whether it’s return rates are comparable to HEI averages

13a. Establish a robust mechanism for measuring internal PS career progression and ensure good management practice in

A proxy measure for PS progression was developed for the 2016 AS submission. The new HR System will capture this information (career histories) as standard from Dec 2018. It will take time to build up this history and so reporting from this

13a.1 Devise a more sophisticated reporting method (using existing datasets) to identify the extent to which formal R&S accounts for PS progression compared with informal progression/ regrading and whether there are any gender/intersectional disparities. 13a.2 Ensure new HR system can capture the reasons for grade increases so that ‘informal’ progression activity can be tracked.

IDA Sep 2017 HR System Project Team Jan 2017

Early test reports drawn in 2020 show that the system is being used robustly to record staff’s internal career moves. Managers feedback to D&I Champions that guidance is helpful (by end of 2018).

Action / Objective



Success measure

providing progression opportunities (Page 92)

system will not be meaningful until 2020 at the earliest.

13a.3 Develop good practice guidance around offering internal secondments/temporary promotions. 13a.4 Use data derived from new HR System to analyse career progression metrics.

D&I Manager & AS PM Apr 2017 IDA D&I Analyst Sep 2020

Career progression is robustly understood by USAT and appropriate actions developed (Oct 2020).

13b. Improve the visibility of internal progression opportunities for PS staff (Page 92)

PS Networks established (2016) to help highlight the transferability of skills to different areas of the university and to develop skills profiles for a range of different PS roles at King’s.

Publicise skills profiles for a range of PS roles and provide pen portraits of successful moves and include feedback page to measure usefulness,

Directors, HR Policy Team May 2017

>50 web page hits (monthly). >80% of staff rate pages as useful. A reduction in PS exit interview responses citing ‘career progression’ as a reason for leaving.

14. Support the professional recognition and career development of Teachers (Page 101)

Good practice pilot (dedicated research time for TFs) launched in Law. Career progression routes developed (creation of STF, PTF) NMS hold regular networking lunches for teachers CRSD programmes open to teaching staff (0% uptake) but several TFs attended

14.1 Roll out pilot across A&S faculties. 14.2 Develop HRMS to robustly and consistently capture data on teaching staff (by role category) to facilitate more comprehensive data analysis 14.3 Develop more targeted/consistent communication channels with Teachers re relevant training/development opportunities available through CRSD

VP (Education) and Faculty Vice-Deans for Education Mar-Dec 2017 HRMS Project Team Feb-Jun 2017 HRTD Jan – May, 2017

Departmental SAT leads report that HR data capture on Teachers has improved (2018) Central reports show no gendered trends as Teachers progress into more senior teaching positions. Training records show an annual increase in the proportion of teaching staff accessing CRSD programmes >10%% (on top of 0% baseline).

Action / Objective



Success measure

CRSD’s new programme launch (2016). CRSD testing whether Teachers have access to the booking system and consulting with TFs in different faculties to better understand their training programme provision needs.

14.4 Invite a Teaching Representative to sit on the Concordat group (or other appropriate fora) to provide representative feedback on CRSD provision and future university actions.

HRTD May 2017

15. Continue to provide training opportunities to support women’s career progression, ensuring BME women are well represented and/or prioritised on programmes. (Page 97)

Internal leadership programmes redeveloped and diversity of nominations encouraged, resulting in high proportions of delegate places being allocated to women, and BME women being proportionally represented (2015-16).

50 places on Aurora since the programme launched in 2013. Places prioritised to researchers, women lecturers and PS grade 7 since 2014 (based on feedback form 1st year cohort) and to BME women since 2015.

15.1 Make targeted nominations to internal leadership programmes to ensure BME women are proportionally represented.

15.2 Prioritise places on Aurora to eligible BME women who are grade 6/7 PS, Lecturers, Research Fellows and Postdoctoral Researchers

on last cohort taking place in 2017/18.

15.3 Offer public speaking masterclass again in 2016/17 (and extend to women in PS) using promotional communications to ensure a diverse cohort. 15.4 Continue to offer Springboard to a minimum of two cohorts (60) PS women on an annual basis. 15.5 Explore merging academic and researcher cohorts or cease delivery based on the mixed feedback results and replace with Action

Deans/ Directors supported by OD at each round, annually ASPM Jul 2017 ASPM June 2017 D&I Coordinator & ASPM Jan, Sep annually ASPM Jan 2017

Proportion of BME women on leadership programmes is greater than or equal to the proportion within the cohort (annually). >10% improvement of baseline (c.75%) survey responses (and for no gender disparities to emerge) in relation to: Has your line manager supported you in accessing training, learning and development? I feel that I am given the same opportunities to develop as other staff

Action / Objective



Success measure

Springboard Women’s Development Programme open to research staff (since 2013) to Academics and PS staff at all grades (since 2015). Bespoke public speaking masterclasses delivered to female academics and researchers rated as highly beneficial by programme participants (2014/15).

Learning. 15.6 Evaluate programmes (intersectionally) for impact every 2 years. Where there is no improvement replace with more supportive programmes/interventions.

ASPM Sep 2018, 2020

Alternative initiatives are considered and implemented by end of 2018 if required.

16. Ensure PDR and talent development processes are representative of inclusive good practice (Page 98 / 99 105)

Robust university-wide initiative has helped us to identify the number of reviewers at King’s (2015-2016). After renewed expectations set about completing reviewer training – significantly more (>20% more) reviewers completed this training (2016). Training providers required to incorporate good inclusive

16.1 Review PDR training and delivery to ensure inclusive messaging. 16.2 Use the new HR System to better track PDR completion rates (using staff survey results as an interim proxy measure). 16.3 Report on PDR completion rates by gender, ethnicity and job category, by department to DISG, annually.

Provosts, Deans, Directors supported by D&I May 2017 HR & IDA Teams 2019 PDR cycle D&I Manager Oct, annually

>90% PDR completion rates amongst all staff group (through proxy staff survey measure in 2017). >90% of all staff have agreed a development plan. 100% PDR completion rates amongst all staff groups (as measured by staff survey in 2019 and new HRMS in 2019/20. All staff have agreed a development plan. >10% increase in staff survey responses to ‘was my PDR helpful

Action / Objective



Success measure

PDR training messages (2016). A leadership competency framework is in development. The new HR system will track PDR completion rates and staff satisfaction with the process (including whether staff have created a career development plan/discussed promotion/progression to go live end of 2018).

16.4 Use the new HR System survey reporting tool to track staff satisfaction with PDR process, in (using staff survey results as a proxy measure in the interim). 16.5 Introduce training/guidance for reviewees as this process is employee-led. 16.6 Devise and introduce a tailored PDR for research staff.

16.7 Devise and introduce tailored PDR for non-sessional Teachers.

16.8 Institute PDR/talent review circles to ensure decisions about staffs’ development plans are not made by lone line managers in isolation. 16.9 Institute transparent and objective leadership competency frameworks and criteria. 16.10 Conduct an EIA of the PDR/talent review criteria and leadership competency framework during their development.

Talent Manager, OD Sep 2019, 2020 Talent Manager, OD May 2018 HR Policy Dir. /HRTD May 2017 HR Policy Dir. May 2018 Deans, Directors supported by OD & D&I. May 2017-2018 As above. As above.

in 2017 – on top of baselines: Men, 65% Women, 72% (2015) Review of training, talent criteria and leadership frameworks confirms prevalence of good practice messaging. Recommendations about process improvements are integrated into future rounds. Equal completion rates and satisfaction rates across different staff groups/diversity groups.

Action / Objective



Success measure

16.11 Develop inclusive recommended guidance around the use of talent criteria and leadership competency frameworks.

As above.

17a. Continue to provide support to women to progress their careers (prioritising places on initiatives to BME women) (Page 101)

University mentoring schemes in place for women academics in STEMM (since 2013) women academics in AHSSBL and researchers (since 2014) and women PS grades 7 and above (since 2015). 121 participants to date (101 Academic and Research staff, 10 PS). DMS open to all women, prioritising places to BME women (2016). Mentoring self-service toolkit developed to support all staff (not just those eligible/participating in King’s DMS or other faculty/department-specific schemes) to develop skills to identify mentors and establish meaningful partnerships (2014 – refreshed 2016)

17a.1 Continue to allocate priority places on King’s Diversity Mentoring Scheme to BME women. 17a.2 Continue to ensure the King’s Diversity Mentoring Scheme is widely publicised as a way to obtain a mentor or join an action learning set to satisfy the demand in this area. 17a.3 Produce annual report on cross-university

mentoring schemes, including participation numbers, target audiences and feedback from participants for quality assurance purposes.

17a.4 Gather and evaluate user-feedback on Mentoring and Job Shadowing Toolkits. 17a.5 Continue to sponsor annual London International Women’s Leadership Symposium on an annual basis and prioritise allocation of King’s 30 delegate places to Aurorans, mentees and women on internal leadership programmes (who have not previously attended the event).

Deans, Directors supported by D&I Team Oct, annually As above and Talent Manager, OD Talent Manager, OD Mar annually Talent Manager, OD Mar annually Provosts supported by ASPM, Dec annually

All BME women who apply to DMS are allocated a mentor (annually). >70% of participants/beneficiaries of different support/development schemes can attribute career enhancing/advancing benefits to participation (as identified through bi-annual impact surveys* that run in 2018 and 2020). Where this is <70% consider re-diverting funds to more impactful schemes and/or redeveloping schemes so that they offer more potential for impact. *Impact surveys use a range of specific measures to help determine this and are standardised across all programmes to determine which programmes are having most impact.

Action / Objective



Success measure

Job Shadowing Toolkit developed to support all staff to (2016). Based on feedback from first year cohort, priority places on Aurora allocated to women researchers, lectures and PS grades 7 (since 2014).

Aurorans, past/present mentees and women on King’s internal leadership programmes allocated priority places at London’s International Women’s Leadership Symposium – which is hosted by King’s since it launched (2015).

17a.6 Run a leadership networking event for professors at King’s.

Provosts Jun, 2018

>50% of our Professors attend the networking event,

17b. Continue to provide bespoke support for researchers to transition of academic roles (Page 101)

New CRSD established after detailed needs-based analysis/ consultation with faculty staff – includes programmes around getting independent funding and how to become a PI etc. (Oct, 2016)

17b.1 Pilot a targeted ECR mentoring scheme (currently in development) with senior academics with 2 cohorts of 25. 17b.2 Promote the successful fellowship application bank to faculties and continue to encourage staff to populate the bank with new successful applications.

HRTD Apr 2017 HRTD Ongoing

As per section 15.a. Also: Feedback through Researcher Networks confirms that supports in place are relevant and beneficial to researchers’ careers/career progression.

Action / Objective



Success measure

0.8 FTE Careers Consultant for research staff appointed (July, 2016)

GAMS/Diversity Mentoring Scheme open to women Researchers since 2014/15. Supplemented by schemes for male and female researchers in many Divisions/Faculties (from 2013 onwards).

Concordat research excellence award successfully renewed in recognition of the support structures in place to support research staff development (2015).

Concordat Implementation Group in place (since 2013), Researcher Reps/networks in all faculties. Online bank of successful fellowship applications

17b.3 Roll out locally developed good practice support initiatives for ECRs across all faculties (inc. grant writing events, mock review panels, publishing workshop materials online).

17b.4 CRSD to enhance communication mechanisms to reach all research staff. 17c.5 Develop a method for analysing postdoctoral research grant application rates by gender (and the intersection of race) as a proxy measure of the utility of the university supports (listed above) and explore viable method for calculating grant application success rates.

See also Action 8.

Deans, Faculty Vice-Deans (Research), HRTD CRS, Oversight Group By end of 2016 HRTD Mar-Dec 2017 HRTD & ASPM May-July 2018

% of female ECRs on mentoring scheme is representative of % women in this staff category. Grant application and success rates by gender (and the intersection of race) are understood at institutional level and are used to measure the impact of collective actions in this area.

Action / Objective



Success measure

launched in A&S (2012) 175 views per month in Health Faculties (2016) 108 views per month. Includes example fellowship applications, and examples of other types of award. Researcher skills conference: Empowering BME Early Career Researchers to stay in academia, being developed by several institutions and being hosted by King’s in 2017.

17c. Support the professional recognition and career development of Technical staff (Page 101)

A cross-university Professional Network for Technicians – partly focuses on career development established(2016) King’s was the first London-based university to register with the Science Council* as a Technician Employer Champion and has been awarded Employer

17c.1 Put in place robust methods of identifying Technical staff on HRMS.

17c.2 When robust identifiers have been agreed, conduct diversity analysis for this group and report to USAT.

HR Policy Dir & Dir. of People Tech, Data & Analytics Mar-Jun 2017 IDA Data Analyst & D&I Manager May 2018

>85% of Network members report receiving increased professional development support as a result of participating in the Network and King’s status as a Technician Employer Champion, (2018). Progress reports chart increasing numbers of Technical staff achieving chartered status.

Action / Objective



Success measure

Champions status (Oct, 2016). *provides a CPD framework and enables technicians to become registered ‘chartered’ scientists King’s is feeding into the HEFCE grant-funded national consultation project being run by Sheffield University, to develop a career development framework for technicians (roll out predicted for 2017). King’s hosted HEaTED London and South East Network Event on Productivity, Diversity and Transition (May, 2016) RDU investigating how to better communicate their training to technical staff/to increase uptake.

17c.3 Provide Network progress reports to USAT on key career development metrics including: numbers working towards/attained chartered status, use of CPD frameworks and other development opportunities.

See 17a.1 above - Continue to offer mentoring to all female PS staff and prioritise BME women in the matching process.

Chair of Technical Network Oct annually

Action / Objective



Success measure

FLEXIBLE WORKING AND MANAGING CAREER BREAKS

18a. Promote good practice in supporting staff before during and upon return from leave (Page 109)

Maternity good practice Guidance & Checklist for managers (2014/updated annually) Pre-qualification for PLF applications requires evidence of supports in place. Managers contacted by the panel if this section is weak (since 2013). Supporting Parents & Carers Top Tips for Managers case-based workshop developed and piloted (2015). Good practice case studies collected in relation to all staff categories (2014-206). New Parenting & Carer’s Hub created on our internal pages – to act as a one-stop signpost to all relevant policies, procedures,

18a.1 Develop Top Tips into an e-module to ensure that this resource is accessible at point of need in particular for clinicians and teaching staff.

(Refresh bi-annually / when policy updated). 18a.2 Revise the guidance and checklist to ensure it is inclusive of staff taking SPL and other types of leave – and that there is a trigger for circulation by HR to staff and manager. 18a.3 Develop a more concise version of the online guidance and checklist, with links to

further details (including recommended good practice case studies, and promotion of the e-module). 18a.4 Monitor staff awareness of this information and the supports available through faculty AS and PCN members’ survey feedback.

18a.5 Promote, maintain and update Hub (revise pages to include a feedback mechanism to collect suggestions for site development).

AS PM Sep 2017 AS PM & HRPA Feb 2017 AS PM& D&I Coordinator Oct 2017 AS PM& D&I Coordinator Oct 2018, 2020 HRPA / AS PM Apr & Oct annually AS SAT leads, AS PM / HRPA/

>100 managers access Top Tips training annually (form 2018 onwards). Managers feedback that Checklist is more user-friendly (by end of 2018). USAT understands why PS staff are not being as well retained as academics and appropriate actions are considered (Oct, 2018). Maternity returners survey shows >80% staff satisfaction with supports, before during and upon return form leave

Action / Objective



Success measure

entitlements and supports available (including links to D&I’s parenting support web pages) (2016).

18a.6 Explore a system for managers to provide details of the support they will put in place for staff (similar to that which is required in PLF) as part of the Maternity Checklist. 18a.7 Consult with new Parent & Carer’s Network

about the availability and practicality of taking up KIT days. 18a.8 Promote the extended availability of the Careers Career Development fund to cover KIT days on the new hub. 18a.9 Survey maternity returners every 2 years to

monitor and evaluate their experiences. 18a.10 Investigate why PS staff are not being retained as well as academic staff. Compare with PS/Academic turnover more generally. 18a.11 Develop and promote transparent guidance on the use of phased returns after a period of family- related/carers leave to ensure

staff are aware of this as a possible arrangement.

18a.12 Continue to promote schemes to support returners nationally (King’s to feature as case

Mar 2018 AS PM / HRPA Oct 2017 HRPA Jan 2017 AS PM & HRPA Feb, 2018 & 2020 ASPM & HRPA May-July 2018 HR Policy Dir. Jun 2017 ASPM Feb 2017 and ongoing

Action / Objective



Success measure

study for Working Families webinar on Family Friendly Policies and Practices in Feb 2017).

18b. Ensure our facilities support staff before, during and after leave (Page 112)

Dedicated Parenting rooms introduced at Strand, Guys and Denmark Hill campuses with dedicated facilities to rest, breastfeed, express & store milk (2016). Also acts as a small meeting space for staff who are bringing children on-site – publicised to staff and students (2016).

18b.1 Continue to progress development of a Parenting room at Waterloo campus. 18b.2 Evaluate room usage (and benefits).

Dir. Estates Jan-Mar 2017 Dir. Estates Jan 2018 and then biannually in Jan.

Maternity returners and P&CN surveys reveal >75% awareness of these rooms & 100% satisfaction (from staff that have used these) Room bookings system shows rooms are being used by both staff and students.

18c. Ensure robust organisational and peer-peer support network structures are in place for all parents and carers (Page 112)

Parent Buddy Scheme (since 2013) 49 members. Parent Buddy Scheme enhanced/ redeveloped into a Parent’s & Carer’s Network with highly visible sponsorship from senior staff with a range of parenting and caring responsibilities (PS & Academic, male & female) (2016).

18c.1 Launch and promote the new Parent and Carer’s Network. HR and/or D&I representatives

to be present for advice at all formal meetings. 18c.2 Evaluate whether the new Network structure is meeting members’ needs.

Provosts, Deans and Directors/AS PM & D&I Co-ordinator Feb 2017 Feb 201 / then Feb biannually

> 15% of network members are men, >5% are carers (2017, 2018) rising by 5-10% in by 2020. >90% of members rate the Network as beneficial to them personally and/or professionally.

18d. Prioritise programmes that will help retain and bolster staff’s

PLF for Academic & Research staff (since 2013) 52 awards/ £200L per annum /65% positive outcomes attributed to Fund. ▪GAMS. Women

18d.1 Continue to run PLF and CCDF with refreshed communications to raise awareness of existence, purpose and eligibility.

Provosts/AS PM Jan 2017 - ASPM

Recipients report >65% positive Fund impacts (2018, 2020). King’s Research Policy revised. Staff with regular conference

Action / Objective



Success measure

careers following a period of leave (Page 112)

can request mentors with career break experience (since 2014). CCDF in place since 2014 to help staff with the additional care costs associated with attending events outside of their normal working pattern (34 awards/to principally research and academic staff, approx. 60% of whom could attribute +ve impacts to participation in scheme). Feedback that CCDF is limited in its usefulness for those who frequently attend conferences and events.

18d.2 Run a focus group with recipients of the PLF to understand how we can enhance its impact. 18d.3 Explore opportunities for additional care costs associated with career enhancing work

activities (e.g. conference attendance) outside of normal working hours/patterns to be provided as standard through King’s research policy

Oct 2017 Provosts/ AS PM Jan – Feb 2017

commitments have a more sustainable policy infrastructure in place to support the higher annual additional care costs incurred by them, by end of 2017 More PS staff and carers begin to access the CCDF (measured annually in July).

19. Ensure consistent policy / practice in support of student (UG, PGT, PGR) parents (Page 109)

Feedback from students suggests consistent policy and practice would be advantageous. Student Advice Services have tried coffee mornings but these have not been well attended but are exploring further in early 2017.

19.1 Establish working group to gather data on student parent support issues, best practice and to measure baseline satisfaction levels – to inform: 19.2 Develop clear policies, transparent information and good support strategies/mechanisms.

VP Education, Faculty Vice-Deans (Education), President KCLSU May 2018 Sep 2018

>90% of student parents are satisfied with policy and practice in this area (and the support they receive) as measured by the ‘satisfaction frameworks’ introduced. (when measured in June 2020).

https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/principal/Senior-Executives/VP-Education/Biography.aspx





Action / Objective



Success measure

19.3 Develop a framework for measuring student satisfaction with information and support mechanisms (including possible inclusion of question markers in existing surveys where we have opportunities to influence this – e.g. PRES &

PTES).

Nov 2018

20. Continue to promote equitable supports & provisions for fathers/ partners/other main adopters (Page 118)

PLF open to men taking 4 months’ leave or more (since 2013). Paternity pay raised to 2 weeks full pay (2015).

Best practice response to SPL introduced ((2015.) Men starting to take long periods of SPL & apply to PLF Parenting & Carer’s Network launching in 2017 – with male sponsors to help

promote/reach out to male parents.

20.1 Ensure communications to promote the new Parent & Carer’s Network are explicit that this is for all parents and carers at King’s. 20.2 Provide an ‘understanding SPL’ session through the Parent’s & Carer’s Network

20.3 Develop Hub resources to include recommended good practice guides on supporting SPL and publish case studies. 20.4 Ensure that the new HR system and processes are capable of recording all paternity/partners leave regardless of duration

and can distinguish between paternity/partners leave and SPL. 20.5 Analyse 2015/16 and future data to understand the extent to which men taking SPL is

ASPM & D&I Co-ordinator Feb-Mar 2017 HRPA May 2017 ASPM & HRPA May 2017 Dir. of People Tech, Data & Analytics Feb-Aug 2017 IDA D&I Analyst & ASPM Oct annually

Men continue to take SPL and numbers increase year on year. Male parents report that the P&CN is meeting their needs (during 2018 P&CN evaluations).

Action / Objective



Success measure

increasing as a proportion of all men taking paternity/partners leave.

21a. Support managers to promote a flexible culture at King’s – which is synonymous with a high performance culture at King’s (Page 119 / 120)

Ongoing SAT consultations reveal that access to flexible working varies between departments/issues of access most pronounced for PS staff (reflected in staff survey results: 51% (m) and 56% (w) agree they are supported to balance work and personal commitments (2015)). Investment approved to develop deep culture change programme around flexible working with specialist charity and consultancy Working Families. Initial programme designed to match EY’s award winning programme (2016). Membership subscription to Working Families (since 2016).

21a.1 Roll out the pilot Flexible Culture Change (FCC) Programme with PS cohort, evaluate and consider wider roll out.

21a.2 Run a campaign to raise awareness of flexible working options, including the publication of case studies of staff in a variety of roles (and levels of responsibility) on the Hub with links to other key pages – e.g. Staff benefits and Well-being pages. 21a.3 Articulate how flexible working supports a high performance culture at King’s in HPC materials/training and communications. 21a.4 Develop Hub to include good practice guides produced by Working Families as well as links to the independently produced Flexible Boss magazine (issues 2013-2016). 21a.5 Continue annual membership of Working Families and participate in their annual flexible working benchmarking survey to see how we compare to the national picture and share results

ASPM & SVP (Operations), Jan – Apr 17 AS PM/HRPA Mar-May 2017 Provosts, Deans, Directors supported by AS PM & Engagement Manager, OD May-Dec 2017 Sep, annually Mar-May, annually

>10 % increase in positive staff responses to work-life balance question in 2017 and > 25% in 2020 when there has been more time for our support programmes to take effect. Faculty AS surveys show more staff are aware of flexible working options: >15% by Oct 2018 and >25% by Oct 2020 – on top of baselines*: Men (Researchers 13%, Academics 44%, PS 20%) Women (Researchers 33%, Academics 42%, PS 49%)

And same increases are seen in relation to the availability of informal arrangements – on top of baselines*: Men (Researchers 23%, Academics, 36%, PS 24%) Women (Researchers 47%, Academics 55%, PS 48%) And a narrowing of the gap between men’s and women’s responses are seen.

Action / Objective



Success measure

with DISG, SET and PS Managers Forum to discuss/action plan. 21a.6 Evaluate faculty AS survey results to measure staff’s awareness of flexible working following phase 1 roll out of FCC. 21a.7 Provide details of the different flex options in our candidate packs and promote the use of Working Families’ ‘Happy to Talk Flexible Working’ logo in job adverts, particularly for senior level appointments.

ASPM Sep 20 Recruitment Manager May 2017-

* proxy measure based on FoLSM’s 2016 survey

21b. Ensure the infrastructure is in place to support flexible working (Page 120)

Microsoft Office 360 training promoted to all staff. 2 minute ‘how to’ videos being developed by IT for their YouTube channel.

21b.1 Promote recently developed easy reference guide to the IT Services that are available to support remote workers and their teams, including on Hub, new starter packs, PDR, maternity check list and to P&CN members. 21b.2 Consider further IT infrastructure supports available to support flexible working.

IT Comms Manager & ASPM Jan-Mar 2017 Director of IT & AS PM May-Jul 2017

>70% P&CN members report that they are aware of the infrastructure available and the training to support this by end of 2017. Further supports are identified and considered by USAT by end of 2018.

21c. Facilitate the internal mobility of staff with flexible working arrangements (Page 120)

To support the career development/advancement of staff working different patterns/FTE. New HRMS will have more scope to record staff working

21c.1 Ensure new HRMS is capable of capturing and recording both formal and informal flexible

working arrangements.

21c.2 Invite staff to create Flexible Passports to capture their existing formal and informal

Director of People Tech, Data & Analytics May 2018 HR/IDA 2018/19

HRMS reports show that staff’s arrangements are starting to be recorded (by Jul 2020). Feedback from P&CN suggests that Flex Passports are useful (by Jul 2020).

Action / Objective



Success measure

patterns (both formal and informal).

arrangements to promote open conversations about these if staff are seconded/move roles – and to also help populate the new HR System with working patterns (formal and informal).

(when functionality is live)

22. Investigate and evaluate equitable childcare provision options (Page 121)

Gender Champion has recruited Senior PS (HR) and Academic (AS SAT lead) to chair a University-wide task group (Nigel Brailsford, Director, HR Policy & Professor Catherine Williamson). King’s does not have its own nursery, but staff are eligible to apply for places at the six nurseries based at our campuses and run by our NHS partners.

We have begun discussions with the LSE nursery (near our Strand Campus) about the potential to share facilities.

22.1 Run a full and transparent review of equitable childcare support/provision options (including previous proactive proposals from staff) and a deep needs-based consultation exercise with staff and student parents (including staff who live outside of inner London) – including holiday and emergency care provision needs and options. (Liaise with Imperial to understand whether the Emergency Care Cover they provide is proving beneficial to staff). 22.2 Invite Working Families to provide independent advice on findings and next steps actions. 22.3 Share findings and recommended next step actions (including related programme of works) with DCN, DISG, USAT SET, P&CN. 22.4 Ensure the future impact of actions can be measured by including questions (or relevant proxy measures) relating to parental leave and childcare in future staff survey. If this is not

Childcare Task Group Chairs Feb – Jun 2017 J Jul 2017 Sep - Oct 2017 Mar 2017

A practical childcare solution or solutions is/are identified by Nov 2017 and is/are deemed equitable by affected stakeholders. A necessary programme of works to realise the identified solution(s) are in place by April 2018.

Action / Objective



Success measure

possible – consider surveying all staff at King’s that have taken leave within the last 2 years.

23. Better understand the needs of our carer’s and explore further support structures (Page 121 / 122)

Important support schemes open to carers (CCDF, since 2014) PLF (since autumn 2016). Academic promotions criteria consider special circumstances (2015, more formalised in 2016). Parent’s & Carer’s Network support structure developed (2016). EAP provides counselling and financial advice.

23.1 Utilise the new Parent and Carers Network to understand further the needs of staff who are carers and how they might be better supported. 23.2 Consider any recommended changes to policy/guidance and/or support mechanisms available. 23.3 Explore the feasibility of a Carer’s Leave Scheme that would enable unpaid leave to be spread across a longer period of time then the leave itself, to minimise financial impacts and preserve continuous employment. 23.4 Explore amendments to the flexible working policy and procedure to enable the consideration of a temporary reduction in working hours/temporary change to working patterns (for all staff, but envisaged to of particular benefit for staff managing care responsibilities). 23.5 Gather feedback from the P&CN on the utility of inviting staff to complete a Carer’s Passport (a formal record of their care

SVP (Operations) supported by ASPM & HRPA May-Nov 2018 AS above. ASPM & HRPM Sept-2017 HR Policy Director, May-Jul 2017 ASPM & HRPA May 2018

Carers begin to access the PLF (from 2017 onwards). See also success measures relating to 18.c and 18.d above. Carer’s Leave is feasible and implemented by Jan 2018. P&CN members feedback that Carer’s Leave is helpful (measured in Jan 2019). Flexible working policy is amended to enable consideration of a temporary reduction in working patterns (by end of 2018) P&CN members who access this policy report that it is supportive (measured in Jan 2020).

Action / Objective



Success measure

responsibilities and working arrangements that can a) be shared with new managers to prevent them having to re-explain circumstances and/or b) be used for equalities analysis – including career progression/promotion (if sufficient data is available). 23.6 Ensure communications for current schemes emphasise the eligibility of carers (including development of Carer resources on Hub). 23.7 Collect and publish examples of good practice in support of staff who are carers, starting with public examples from our departmental submissions and volunteer cases from P&CN members.

AS PM & HRPA Jan – Sep 2017 AS PM & HRPA Mar-May 2017

ORGANISAITON AND CULTURE

24a. Continue to promote local good gender equality practice across the university between/ across STEMM, AHSSBL & CS

Athena SWAN Champions Network (2013 – 2015, bi-monthly meetings to share good practice) replaces with Diversity Champions Network (2016 – termly meetings). Good Practice Matrix developed by Health faculties and divisions.

24a.1 Create an online repository for all departmental Champions to update the AS/D&I Good Practice Matrix with new/innovative practices and impact and promote widely.

D&I Champions supported by the D&I Co-coordinator & IDA Web Developer Mar-May 017 D&I Manager

Good practice repository grows (annually) and represents activity across the university (STEMM, AHSSBL and PS Directorates). D&I Champions report growing confidence in responding to D&I challenges.

Action / Objective



Success measure

(Page 127 / 128 / 135)

University-wide D&I Strategy for Action meetings involves collecting and sharing this information. GA newsletter (2014-15) replaced with termly D&I newsletter (2016)

24a.2 Continue to invite PS and academic D&I Champions to present local good practice initiatives at termly Network meetings. 24a.3 Survey Champions to understand changing levels of confidence in approaching and implementing D&I ‘change’ interventions. 24a.4 Develop a user-friendly EIA prompt sheet. 24a.5 Committee Chairs to provide DISG with summary EIAs relating to all key decisions and (where appropriate) policy changes and DISG to positively challenge committees where this does not happen. DISG to make further recommendations about necessary EIAs where appropriate.

Feb, May, Oct annually D&I Coordinator Oct, annually D&I Manager Mar 2017 Committee Chairs, termly Feb, May, Oct annually

DISG receive and review important EIAs termly and their recommendations are actioned by EIA owners. Evaluation of key processes such as PDR, R&S and supporting toolkits indicates that inclusive messaging, nudges and prompts are embedded throughout.

24b. Celebrate innovative and impactful AS good practice (Page 128)

Spotlight articles on departmental good-practice featured in Gender Bulletin (2014 – 2015) and now D&I Newsletter (2016). Annual King’s Award to recognise outstanding contribution (an individual or a team) in promoting gender equality (since 2014) now

24b Augment the annual AS award celebration event (hosted by the Principal) to also celebrate i) new/ innovative departmental policy/practice ii) the winner of the King’s award and iii) key D&I achievements across the university.

Dir. of Communication & Engagement supported by AS PM & D&I Co-ordinator Jun 2017 & annually

D&I achievements and successes are celebrated formally on an annual basis and promoted publically

Action / Objective



Success measure

diversity more broadly (since 2015)

24c. Ensure structures are in place to ensure optimum roll-out of evidence-based good practice (Page 128)

Dedicated AS/D&I staff in IoPPN, FoLSM, NMS and A&H – together with the central D&I team they form King’s wider equalities team/King’s D&I Professional Network, meeting every 6 weeks to discuss common priorities and share learning (2016). King’s commissioned a review of its approach by expert consultants Pearn Kandola (2016).

24c.1 Disseminate and operationalise the recommendations of PK’s D&I review. 24c.2 Develop the wider equalities team into a Good Practice Mainstreaming’ Task Group; developing cross-faculty/directorate project teams to action common priority projects, using evidence based derived locally, centrally and externally.

SVP (Quality & Innovation); Provosts, D&I Director Mar – Dec 2017 As above

Wider D&I team report that common projects are being rolled out more swiftly and robustly, with enhanced learning and impact compared to silo working (by Sep 2018).

24d. Ensure widespread dissemination of good practice in relation to key policies and procedures (Page 128)

Top Tips for Managers – 1 hour (case-based) good practice sessions relating to PDR, R&S, Supporting Parents & Carers (developed and run through 2015/16).

24d.1 Develop an online Top Tips for Managers training tool to enable all managers to access this training (promoting widely including through D&I Newsletter and to part participants of D&I and UB training programmes). Build evaluation into the tool. 24d.2 Review and update the content of the training in line with developing policy and good practice/refresh case examples.

AS PM, Sep – Oct 2017 AS PM/HRPA May, Sep, annually OD Co-ordinators

Top Tips programme content reflects new and emerging good practice as evaluated by wider D&I team members (by end of 2018). >75% of all managers are trained by end of 2020.

Action / Objective



Success measure

24d.3 Set up a system of alerts to advise staff that have previously undertaken the training, that updates are available. 24d.4 If uptake is low (<50% of target audience) by 2019, consider making training mandatory

Jan 2018 USAT Mar, 2019

24e. Continue with our deep programme of D&I, UB and inclusive leadership training (Page 128)

Trained 51% of initial target audience (PS grades 7 and above and Senior Lecturers and above) in UB and as well as our senior management team and Council members. Additional UB programmes commissioned by many individual departments, to ensure all staff trained (2013-2016). UB toolkit developed to support staff’s continued engagement with developing strategies to deal with UB (2015). Inclusive leadership (IL) training piloted with senior academic managers in FoLSM and senior PS managers in

24e.1 Roll out online UB training for all staff (building on that which is in development for students). 24e.2 Promote IL training to all participants of King’s internal leadership programmes (send personal invitations). 24e.3 Evaluate Wellcome PI training being piloted by King’s.

Deans, Directors supported by D&I Manager Oct 2017 OD Co-ordinator – Sept annually HRDT Nov 2017

>90% of initial UB target audience trained in UB by end of July 2017 Annual UB training records shows that all staff with official leadership and committee responsibilities have undertaken UB training within the last 3 years. >85% of staff attending King’s leadership programmes have attended IL.

Action / Objective



Success measure

Strategy, Planning & Assurance and in Fundraising (2015-2016). IL programme available to all staff attending internal leadership programmes (2017 onwards).

24f. Promote inclusion (agenda, priorities, support structures, training and resources) at key induction touch points (Page 128)

D&I are now invited to every Welcome (induction) Session as a stall holder

Inclusion agenda already promoted in a number of faculty and directorate induction processes

24f.1 Ensure key inclusion agenda priorities are promoted to staff at Welcome Sessions and information about topical events and programmes are shared. Provide an opportunity for staff to sign up to the KDC (to receive details of forthcoming D&I events/programmes and networks). Provide information on LGBT+ Network.

24f.2 Refresh New Colleagues web pages to include details of and links to UB training courses.

24f.3 Promote Inclusion and UB training as part of departmental induction web pages, events and checklists.

D&I Central Team members, on rotation, Ongoing Engagement Manager, OD Feb 2017 SAT / D&I Committees Mar–May 2017

UB and D&I training data reports show >75% of new starters complete UB/D&I training in their first year at King’s (from 2018 onwards, after online UB training has been made available). KDC mailing list grows >10% each year (Measured annually in Sep).

24g. Ensure good practice D&I messages are embedded into all of our leadership and

King’s OD tendering process requires that all training consultants provide details of how they will embed D&I good practice and messaging into their leadership, development and other

24g.1 Promote our inclusive teaching and learning resources to training providers. 24g.2 Monitor how D&I messages are being integrated into externally provided learning programmes (member of wider equalities team to sit on one of each of the relevant programmes

OD Co-ordinators Ongoing Wider equalities members, on

Evaluation of externally delivered programmes confirms that delivery and content is supporting/ promoting inclusive messaging and agendas. Feedback mechanism loop is judged to be effective.

Action / Objective



Success measure

development programmes (Page 128)

relevant training programmes (e.g. PDR) (2016)

each year to evaluate/feedback) and relay feedback and recommendations to consultants. 24g.3 Revise delegate feedback forms to include a question around whether participants found the programme content, delivery and messaging to be inclusive/to promote inclusive considerations.

rotation Jan–Dec 2017 OD Co-ordinators Mar 2017

24h. Develop supports in response to negative culture experienced by staff (Page 127)

A basket of interventions around Staff Experience have been introduced in 2016.

Continue to roll out basket of interventions around the Staff Experience.

(See also Action 1 above).

OD Engagement Manager, Jan –Dec 2017

A variety of mechanisms to evaluate improved staff experiences show positive upward indicators.

24i. Ensure all staff are accountable for gender equality and inclusion (Page 135)

All Deans and Directors have been actively engaged in the D&I Strategy for Action (since 2015) and all Deans actively engaged in AS (since 2013/14 – or before in some instances).

24i.1 All leadership roles to have D&I KPIS as part of their role deliverables.

24i.2 Produce a proposal and suggested plan for incorporating D&I into the job descriptions of all

staff for review at the Feb 2017 meeting of DISG.

President, Provosts, Deans, Directors, Director of SP&A, D&I Manager Jan 2017

All staff understand their accountabilities for gender equality (as measured by PDR online feedback mechanism (from 2019 onwards).

24j. Ensure parity in the amount of workspace

History department’s AS consultations/studies revealed a gender bias

24j.1 Conduct space audits across King’s (for academic and PS staff) and report on findings to USAT.

Director of Estates & Facilities, COO,

Clear guidelines on how space should be allocated are communicated to staff,

Action / Objective



Success measure

allocated to men and women (Page 128)

towards men in the way work space is allocated. USAT agreed to conduct a similar study across the whole of the institution for PS and academic staff.

24j.2 Develop guidelines for how space should be allocated. 24j.3 Develop a mechanism for monitoring space allocation in the future. (If this is other than repeating the audit every 2-3 years).

Directors of Administration Feb – May 2017 Dir. Estates & E&F Space Team Sep 2017 As above

A repeat space audit in 2019 reveals parity in space allocated.

24k. Ensure new HR System supports AS trend and analysis (Page 128)

D&I representatives sit on the new HR System Project Implementation Group. IDA manager sits on the university AS Steering Group. IDA Analyst sits on DISG.

HR System Project Team to continue to consider all AS/D&I system requests and integrate/accommodate/make alternative system recommendations to support the D&I agenda to enable a more efficient process for capturing and monitoring AS trends and analysis.

Director of People Tech, Data & Analytics, Feb– Jun 2017

Wider equalities team review of new HR System confirms that it is fit for purpose/it supports the holistic data collection and reporting required for AS.

25. Improve our policy and practice around bullying and harassment for staff (Page 129)

Dignity at Work statement introduced (2015)

Wide reaching, institutional approach to student harassment focusing around It Stops Here campaign (2015)

Data, qualitative feedback from staff survey and best practice across the sector

Staff Harassment Working Group to devise and deliver an action plan to address staff harassment issues - to bring policy, practice and support structures for staff in-line with augmented student provision (including staff awareness and manager skills):

Detail: Develop a university-wide strategy to embed activities in response to the UUK Taskforce report covering student harassment (to include a more systematic training programme for priority groups of staff and online training for all staff and

Working Group Chairs

Jan 2017-

Jul 2018

A strategy for staff is developed in alignment with student provision (including policies, support, awareness and skills training for managers) by end 2017/18.

Action / Objective



Success measure

and beyond reviewed and considered at DISG (2016)

Senior level agreement for a systematic and rapid response to bring staff and student provision into line and achieve best practice (2016)

Formation of a staff harassment working group (2016) - formation of a steering group with senior cross-university accountability. Agreement to elevate responsibility for work around sexual harassment, harassment and hate crime to VP level and take a holistic institutional approach.

students, covering expected behaviour, as well as building relationships with external agencies and reviewing protocols around support for survivors and perpetrators) by end 17/18.

26. Improve the diversity of our internal leadership teams (Page 130)

USAT agreed that internal leadership positions (e.g. HoD) be ‘fixed term’ (not rotated) and that deputies be used to improve future diversity. If the gender balance in leadership

26.1 Defined internal leadership positions (e.g. HoD) to be ‘fixed term’ (not rotated).

President, Provost, Deans, supported by HR Policy Team May-Sep 2017

All defined internal leadership positions are on a fixed term basis by Nov 2019 (as confirmed by all Deans and Directors). All defined leadership positions have deputies from under-

Action / Objective



Success measure

positions is poor, exceptions must be signed off by the VP for that area (2016). Paper presented to SMT to set targets for gender and race in 5 years’ time, based on existing gender and BME representation of leadership team.

26.2 Identify and roll out similar processes for PS leadership positions where practical.

26.3 All Faculties to move to the good practice of

appointing and developing deputies from under-represented groups.

26.3 If the gender balance in leadership positions is poor, exceptions must be signed off by the VP for that area. See also Actions 16.9,10 and 11 above.

Directors supported by Director of Governance Sep 2017-2018 Provost, Deans, Directors, supported by D&I Deans, Directors

represented groups by June 2018 (as confirmed by all Deans and Directors).

27. Ensure gender balance of King’s key committees (Page 131 / 132)

Gender balance of senior academic committees monitored by the university Governance Team, annually, data shared with Academic Board (since 2014). System of female deputies instigated for academic committees (2014). Membership broadly reflects the gender balance of the academic population.

27.1 Roll out the system of deputies to other committees at King’s, including Estates and Facilities, expanding membership further as necessary to ensure appropriate gender-representation. 27.2 Review UCL’s ‘step-change’ report and consider recommendations. 27.3 All committee chairs to be accountable for the gender composition of their respective committees and to report on gender balance and plans to Academic Board. Academic Board to report on its gender balance to Chair of Council;

Director of E&F with support from Director of Governance May – Sep 2017 Director of Governance May – Jun 2017 Committee Chairs May-Jun 2017

Membership of committees broadly reflects the gender balance of the academic and PS population.

Action / Objective



Success measure

with immediate/short-term strategies to be produced by committees with less than 30% membership by women. 27.4 Continue to use and perfect the online mechanism for collecting lay committee member

equal opportunities data

27.5 Put targets in place for committee representation.

Director of Governance/ D&I Manager May, annually Director of Governance May 2017

28. Ensure the visibility of (senior) female role models across the university (Page 139/140)

Meet the Professors campus photographic frieze and supporting web pages (2014, refreshed 2016) recent data suggest that 45 people visit these pages every day. Open Doors (campus photographic campaign friezes and supporting web pages, celebrating BME staff (academic/PS) and students New digital signage has enabled an increase in the proportion of visible female

28.1 Refresh Meet the Professors installation and supporting web pages every two years and identify more locations for an expanding display. 28.2 Expand installation to include senior professional service women. 28.3 If the BME representation of women at these grades (Professor, Senior PS) is poor, include images of women who have achieved other leadership accolades and awards. 28.4 Develop guidelines for all campuses re the gender composition of imagery on display

AS PM, May 2018, May 2020 AS PM May 2018. As above AS PM Oct-Nov 2017

Image gallery and online bios are refreshed every 2 years. Number of images & bios increase by >5% every 2 years (after taking account of leavers). >30% of images are of BME women. An image audit confirms that >45% of images on display at campuses are of/feature women by 2019.

Action / Objective



Success measure

role models on display to staff and students (e.g. 59% of digital images displayed on campus at Strand and VWB in 2016 were women – compared to 23% of the static images).

28.5 Explore the roll out of digital signage at all campuses

Dir. of External Relations May – Aug 2017

SUPPORTING TRANS PEOPLE

29a. Improve data capture and monitoring to better understand the needs of trans staff and students (Page 145)

Data collection of trans status for staff and students (since 2012-13) including Mx introduced as title option on student records system (2012). Data points where gender collected mapped in staff processes (Sep, 2016). Survey and focus groups conducted by independent consultant to understand the experiences/needs of trans staff and students (May, 2016).

29a.1 Identify and consult on best practice coding systems for gender identity, sex and title for staff and students and reconcile with external reporting systems. 29a.2 Develop and publicise guidance on how data should be captured and used (with sample form) and used, including gendered titles. 29a.3 Map staff and student systems and ensure they are utilising a standardised approach to data capture. 29a.4 Recapture data for staff as part of introduction of new HR system.

D&I Manager IDA Analyst, Head of Planning & Analytics, Head of Assessment & Records Feb,2017 Mar-Apr 2017 Jun-Jul 2017 Sep 2017

A disclosure rate for staff and student data that is near expected norms (1% for staff and greater for students). Trans staff participation in staff survey matches representation in HR data and responses used to identify areas of concern. An improvement in feedback scores in trans consultation survey with staff and students. New issues identified feed into our action plan.

Action / Objective



Success measure

Findings and next step actions shared with LGBT+ Network for feedback (Oct, 2016). Next step action plan confirmed with action owners (Nov, 2016).

29a.5 Consider data as part of annual cycle of review and feed important findings into action planning. 29a.6 Work with IT to remove presence of gendered titles on systems where not needed. 29a.7 Run short consultation exercise with trans staff and students to identify progress and outstanding issues

Mar 2018 and then annually Aug 2017 May 2018

29b. Ensure accessibility of trans related information for trans staff and students (Page 145)

Central point of information to be established for Trans staff & students on university webpages

Diversity & Inclusion Manager Feb 2017

Improved satisfaction and level of inclusion for trans staff, evidenced through staff survey responses and consultation exercise.

29c. Ensure mutual support structure for trans staff and students (Page 145)

Active LGBT+ Student Society (Soc)125 official members, 1064 members on Facebook group, runs monthly Trans socials (22-38 students), Trans 101 event (Oct 2016), runs Facebook page for Trans students in London (80 members).

29c.1 Hold a fundraiser for Action For Trans Health. 29c.2 Develop events for LGBT History Month each year (including at least one Trans-focused event). 29c.3 Complete the Stonewall WPEI application 2018 (which includes Trans components).

LGBT+ Soc Jan-Feb 2017 LGBT+ Soc Jan- Feb annually LGBT+ Net Jan-Nov 2017 LGBT+ Net

Increased involvement and visibility of Trans staff within the LGBT+ Network. Additional actions relating to trans staff incorporated into action plan Increased disclosure of trans status and participation in staff survey from trans staff

Action / Objective



Success measure

LGBT Staff Network (Net) Relaunched (Feb 2015). Well attended event including Principal and VP. Various LGBT+ social events held, participated at Pride. LGBT+ lanyards disseminated and worn by senior leaders (2016).

29c.4 LGBT Network to work with ‘out’ Trans staff to build relationships and visibility of this group as part of wider network.

Trans staff involved in our research Feb 2017

29d. Ensure staff are able to respond appropriately to the needs of trans staff and students (through training and awareness raising) (Page 145)

D&I training programme includes information about Trans as a protected characteristic since 2010 IoPPN D&I Team organised LGBT+ mental health event in March 2016 and session on Trans and non-binary language. Working on 3 LGBT+ mental health films (students, LGB and trans & non-binary) and LGBT+ film night planned for end November 2016

29d.1 Undertake a training needs analysis which identifies trans requirements university-wide and devise a 3-year training plan to include:

- Embedding into existing face to face & on-line training and tool-kits for both managers and staff (D&I and OD)

- Identifying priority groups who require face to face input

29d.2 Deliver training. 29d.3 Plan a large scale awareness-raising event to be delivered in conjunction with LGBT+ Network, Society and IoPPN D&I Team

D&I Manager Internal & External Trans Consultants Jan-Feb 2017 Mar 2017 – Mar 2020 Mar 2018

Participants have improved awareness and understanding of issues evidenced through evaluation. Improved responses from trans staff in survey and consultation exercise.

29e. Ensure our policies and practices are inclusive of

Trans equality statement and procedures developed in conjunction with LGBT+ student society, 2010.

29e.1 Make recommended changes to student policies & publish.

Assoc. Dir. Academic Services May 2017

Improved responses from trans staff in survey and consultation exercise.

Action / Objective



Success measure

trans staff and students (Page 145)

Include protections and practical arrangements for those transitioning, with option for this to be managed by D&I All relevant university policies and procedures reviewed by consultant (confirmed they were broadly inclusive) October 2016

29e.2 Consider recommended changes to HR Policies, revise and publish on intranet. 29e.3 Review, consult and publicise revised Trans procedure. 29e.4 Publish BUCS policy relating to competitive sport (below) and statement about non-gendered nature of non-competitive sport on King’s Sport page. 29e.5 Consider extension of Personal Tutor Portal to cover Trans issues, including estrangement.

R&P Team, HR Aug 2017 D&I Manager Mar - Apr 2017 Sports & Lifestyle Manager Feb 2017 College Snr Personal Tutor Feb 2017

29f. Ensure the provision if inclusive facilities & services – including toilets, health, leisure and sports facilities (Page 145)

Health Centre holds Gold Pride in Practice Award since 2013 – recognises good practice in registration, awareness and training of staff Several meetings between Estates and LGBT+ Society to consider GNT facilities – 2015 GNT delivered at each campus (Jan 2016) and

29f.1 Obtain advice about repurposing fields in the IT systems used by the Health Centre/Sports Centre specific IT systems to allow ‘preferred name’ and Mx to be used. 29f.2 Provide specific feedback to Health Centre (taken from existing research) to assist them to identify and address specific concerns with their service, and methods for capturing on-going feedback from students. 29f.3 Identify GNT and changing facilities in the Fitness Centre.

Health Centre Practice Manager Jan 2017 Sports & Lifestyle Manager Jan-Feb 2017 Jun 2017

Health Centre receives fewer complaints and also positive feedback on provision from Trans students. Improved responses from trans staff in survey and consultation exercise in relation to specific questions relating to health and sports facilities.

Action / Objective



Success measure

publicised via all student email, maps on internet, intranet, King’s app and termly twitter. GNT facilities to be included in all new buildings - ongoing Eligibility of students to participate in competitive sports governed by the British Universities and Colleges Sport (BUCS) Transgender Policy – Sept 2016

29f.4 Incorporate GNT and changing facilities in two out of three sports grounds (the third is designed in a way where this is not currently feasible). 29f.5 Training to be given to staff at these grounds. 29f.6 GNT to be expanded and made available in key buildings such as JCMB and NHH (at our Waterloo and Guy’s campuses).

Jun 2017 Sep 2017 Sep 2017

29g. Ensure our work around an inclusive curriculum incorporates trans (Page 145)

BME Success Steering Group established with a focus on reducing the BME attainment gap, and promoting inclusive education more broadly, Oct 2016

29g. 1 Include a focus on de-gendering the curriculum as part of the multi-level strategy (audits and training) towards an inclusive curriculum. 29g.2 Deliver the inclusive strategy.

Student D&I Officer, Internal Trans Consultant & Rep from Queer@ King’s 2015/16 2016/17-17/18

Improved student satisfaction and attainment levels – as measures through improved responses from trans staff in survey and consultation exercise in relation to specific questions relating to teaching and curriculum.

Glossary

AHSSBL – Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Business & Law

A&S – Arts & Sciences

AS – Athena SWAN

ASPM – Athena SWAN Project Manager

BME – Black and Minority Ethnic

CCDF – Carers Career Development Fund

CRSD – Centre for Research Staff Development

CS – Central Services

DAs – Directors of Administration

D&I – Diversity & Inclusion

Dir – Director

DMS – Diversity Mentoring Scheme

ECR – Early Career Researcher

E&F – Estates & Facilities

EIA – Equality Impact Assessment

FTC – Fixed Term Contract

GAMS – Gender Ambitions Mentoring Scheme

GNT – Gender neutral toilets

GPG – Gender Pay Gap

HRMS – Human Resources Management System

HRPA – HR Policy Advisor

HRRC – HR Rewards Consultant

HRTD - Head of Researcher Training and Development

IDA – Information Development & Analysis Team

IL – Inclusive Leadership

KDC – King’s Diversity Community

LGBT+ - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender

OD – Organisation Development

P&CN – Parent & Carers Network

PDR – Performance Development Review

PLF – Parenting Leave Fund

PS – Professional Services

PT – Part Time

PTF – Principle Teaching Fellow

R&P – Remuneration & Policy Team

R&S – Recruitment & Selection

RDU – Researcher Development Unit

SAT – Self Assessment Team

SL – Senior Lecturer

SMT – Senior Management Team

SVP – Senior Vice Principal

SPL – Shared Parental Leave

STEMM – Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine & Maths

SP&A – Strategy Planning & Assurance

STF – Senior Teaching Fellow

TF – Teaching Fellow

ToRs – Terms of Reference

UB – Unconscious bias

USAT – University Self-Assessment Team

Documents

King’s College London Silver Application 2016