• Civil Service governance
• Accountability
• Diversity
  • Achieving a diverse Civil Service
  • Diversity Champions Network
  • Monitoring diversity
  • Public equality duties
  • Tackling harassment and bullying
  • Disability consultation
    • Disability report
  • Ethnicity re-survey
• Statistics
• Public bodies
• Public appointments
• Nationality requirements
• Government communications

About the Civil Service

Civil Service Disability Consultation

Report on the outcome of the Disability Consultation

Analysis of responses

Q4. If you did not agree with question 2, does your organisation agree that Cabinet Office should continue to collect data on a range of categories, for example, those that are currently in the Mandate data collection specification, or on some other basis?

There were only nine respondents, 11.3 per cent, who disagreed with the proposal at question 2, that Cabinet Office should only collect data on a yes/no basis. These respondents were asked in question 4 to select from two possible options what departments and agencies should collect for their own internal monitoring of disabled staff. The two options were: the broad range of categories currently in Cabinet Office's Mandate specification, or an alternative set of categories.

Table 7 - Mandate categories

Response	Frequency	Per cent
Total	9	100.0
Yes	7	77.8
No	2	22.2

Table 7 shows that seven out of the nine respondents preferred the Mandate categories.

[Top of page]

Table 8 - Alternative categories

Response	Frequency	Per cent
Total	9	100.0
Yes	2	22.2
No	7	77.8

Table 8 shows that only two out of the nine respondents preferred an alternative set of categories.

On the basis that only nine respondents disagreed with the proposal at question 2, it is agreed that the views of the majority who responded in favour would be carried. Therefore, it is agreed that Cabinet Office should only collect data on a yes/no basis.

[Top of page]

Q5. Do you agree that departments and agencies should re-survey, or update their internal HR information on disability status, on a frequent basis?

Table 9 - Q5: Do you agree with re-surveying?

Response	Frequency	Per cent
Total	80	100.0
Agree	79	98.8
Disagree	1	1.2

Table 9 shows that respondents were almost unanimous in their support for carrying out regular monitoring for disability, with 79 out of 80 agreeing with the proposal.

[Top of page]

Q6. If you agreed with question 5, how frequently would you want to update your internal HR data on disability status?

Table 1- - Question 6: Frequency of collection

Response	Frequency	Per cent
Total	79	100.0
Every year	38	48.1
Every 2 years	24	30.4
Every 3 years	7	8.9
Other	10	12.6

Table 10 shows the preferred frequencies for disability monitoring or updating internal HR data on disability status. The most popular option for re-surveying was annually, favoured by 48.1 per cent of respondents, followed by every two years, favoured by 30.4 per cent of respondents.

In total, 77.5 per cent of the 80 respondents agreed that disability monitoring should be carried out at least every two years. This shows a high degree of willingness from departments to ensure that their data on disabled staff is kept as up to date as possible.

Of the ten respondents who selected the 'Other' option, eight of them provided comments as to how they would want to update their information on disabled staff. These comments are listed below.

• Aim to obtain non-personalised information from annual staff survey. Large discrepancies may indicate a need for a formal survey.
• The frequency and degree to which an organisation should re-survey its staff will depend on how it carries out its initial information gathering.
• Updated electronically as and when changes happen.
• Every 5 years.
• Moving to e-HR which will allow for a rolling programme. Remind by messaging every year.
• Regular updating from internal monitoring system.
• Reviewing the process and regularity now.
• A rolling programme.

From the above comments there is some indication that as more departments move to e-HR systems, they will be able to use employee self-assessment to ensure that the information is updated regularly.

[Top of page]

Q7. Do you have any other comments you would like to make about data collection on disabled staff in the Civil Service?

Out of the 80 responses, 37, some 46.3 per cent, made additional comments in response to question 7.

Overall, 66 respondents, 82.5 per cent, made some comments in their responses to the questionnaire.

When asked about responses remaining confidential 20 respondents, 25.0 per cent, asked for their comments to remain confidential, 50, some 62.5 per cent, did not want them to be confidential and 10, some 12.5 per cent, did not stipulate either way.
A full set of the non-confidential comments is available on request from Personnel Statistics in Cabinet office.

[Top of page]