Consultation outcome: personal characteristics and equality data

Contents

1. Overview of the consultation
2. Personal characteristics and equality data in HESA records
3. Care leaver
4. Disability
5. Ethnicity
6. Gender identity / gender reassignment
7. Religion or belief
8. Sex identifier
9. Sexual orientation
10. Proposal to collect data on marital status
11. Proposal to collect data on pregnancy
12. Proposal to collect data on maternity / paternity leave
13. General feedback
14. Further links: notification of change pages for Staff, ITT and Data Futures

Overview of the consultation

This consultation was published on 17 March 2021 and closed on 17 June 2021. We received 117 responses from higher education providers and other organisations.

The purpose of the consultation was to consider updates to the coding frames for various personal characteristics and equality data items, across multiple collections, based on changes being made to national censuses. There were also proposals to consider the implications of collecting three new data items on marital status, pregnancy and maternity.

We only accepted online responses; we have provided a PDF of the text and questions included in the consultation for reference purposes only:

HESA personal characteristics and equality data consultation text (PDF)

As part of our commitment to transparency, we provided the full text of feedback and responses to Statutory Customers; we have included representative comments below to reflect the decisions and outcomes.

Questions 1-6 required personal or identifying information from the respondent on behalf of their organisation.

 

Personal characteristics and equality data in HESA records

 
Question 7: Do you support the proposal to align similar categories of data across HESA records, where this is possible?

Response	Count
Yes	109
No	1
Undecided	6
Not answered	1

Representative comments

The majority of respondents supported the principle to align the field names, questions and field value options for similar categories of data across HESA records. One respondent said that “consistent categories across HESA records will help with communications”. Another suggested that aligning the generic codes allows responses to be given with consistency.

Some comments suggested that the “Prefer not to say” options may genuinely be used be a large proportion of students / staff for the fields being proposed as mandatory, and that validation / tolerances should be applied with that in mind.

Recommendation 

To align categories of data across HESA record, where this is possible.

Question 8: Do you support the proposal to alphabetise the labels, where this is possible?

Response	Count
Yes	99
No	4
Undecided	12
Not answered	2

Representative comments

The majority of respondents supported the proposal to alphabetise the labels in these fields, reasons given where that the ordering of labels is important as it dispels notions that some responses are ordered ahead of others for underlying reasons (i.e. discrimination). It removes any perceived bias or hierarchy and better promotes equality.

There were some exceptions given (and many HESA already proposed in this consultation):

• Generic codes should be at the end of the lists (to promote declaration of responses or to be more convenient to find). 
• Keep the “Any other…” type codes with the alphabetised group (e.g. ethnicity).

Recommendation

To alphabetise lists of response options, where this is possible.

Question 9: Do you support HESA to follow Advance HE’s suggestions, where this is possible?

Response	Count
Yes	100
No	1
Undecided	15
Not answered	1

Representative comments

The majority of respondents were happy to follow Advance HE’s suggestions for these data, some giving reasons for that, such as “happy so long as granularity is not too excessive” or “a greater range will enrich the data”.

Recommendation

To follow Advance HE’s guidance, where this is possible. If this is not possible, make it very clear why different guidance has been implemented.

Question 10: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

Collection of information on protected characteristics must have a meaningful purpose.

A few respondents asked HESA to engage in discussions with other organisations collecting similar data, to better align codes across the sector, suggestions were: the Department for Education and the Education & Skills Funding Agency (for the Individualised Learner Record). Others reiterated the requirement that UCAS (and DfE Apply) also need to make these changes.

Many respondents explained that it was too late to make any changes for 2021/22 (to the application systems for students) and that they would only be able to implement these changes for 2022/23

Recommendation

HESA’s Statutory Customers have already confirmed and announced to the sector, that no changes were needed for the 2021/22 collections.

Care leaver

 
Question 11: Providers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales: do you support the proposal to collect these categories for care leaver fields?

Response	Student	Student Alternative
Yes for 2021/22	11	4
Yes for 2022/23	41	3
Undecided	8	3
Not applicable or not answered	23	73

Question 12: Providers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales: please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

Burden assessment score	Student	Student Alternative
0	0	2
1-3	22	3
4-7	25	1
8-10	11	1
Not answered	24	76

Question 13: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

Many respondents were generally supportive of the aim to improve the data collected about care leavers / care experienced students, stating that a drive for greater consistency is welcome and the definitions were mostly an improvement.

However, some respondents asked for more expansive definitions and guidance to be given, particularly around the differences between the two terms and for guidance on what it would mean to verify that a student has been in care. Some stated that the term “care experienced” was preferred.

Recommendation

The care leaver field will be implemented as proposed in the consultation.

Disability

 
Question 14: Do you support the proposal to collect these categories for disability fields?

Response	ITT	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
Yes for 2021/22	9	19	14	6
Yes for 2022/23	27	46	56	4
Undecided	1	3	3	0
Not applicable or not answered	0	2	9	73

Question 15: Please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

Burden assessment score	ITT	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
0	1	3	1	0
1-3	19	37	29	6
4-7	11	24	34	2
8-10	3	1	6	0
Not answered	3	5	13	75

Question 16: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

Respondents generally welcomed the move to a repeating field rather than the indicating “Two or more impairments…” in the current fields because it more valuable and will allow better use of the data for monitoring and research. However, they specified this will be the biggest development effort needed to implement the proposals.

Recommendation

The disability fields will be implemented as proposed, with a change to the question and updates made to the labels.

Ethnicity

 
Question 17: Do you support the proposal to collect these categories for Ethnicity fields?

Response	ITT	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
Yes for 2021/22	8	13	13	5
Yes for 2022/23	28	51	57	4
Undecided	1	5	4	0
Not applicable or not answered	0	1	9	74

Question 18: Which option of coding frame do you prefer?

Split by record:

Response	ITT	Staff	Student/ Student Alternative
Option one, a country specific set of codes to use	21	34	36
Option two, a unified set of codes across devolved administrations	15	35	45
Not answered	1	1	2

Overall:

Response	Overall
Option one, a country specific set of codes to use	56
Option two, a unified set of codes across devolved administrations	58
Not answered	3

Question 19: Option one: Please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

• Option one, a country specific set of codes to use.

Burden assessment score Option one	ITT	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
0	1	2	1	1
1-3	25	42	42	6
4-7	6	18	20	0
8-10	1	2	3	0
Not answered	4	6	17	76

Question 20: Option two: Please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

• Option two, a unified set of codes across devolved administrations.

Burden assessment score Option two	ITT	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
0	0	0	0	1
1-3	18	36	34	7
4-7	10	24	27	0
8-10	3	5	6	0
Not answered	6	5

Question 21: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

Comments specifically about option 1 (a country specific set of codes to use):

• Some options could be confusing to respondents
• Accuracy is lost with lots of options due to form fatigue
• If the detail was not used in analysis, then broader categories would be less burdensome

Comments specifically about option 2 (a unified set of codes across devolved administrations):

• Why exclude some of the codes?
• All providers having the same granularity of codes would be preferred
• Unsure how providers would explain the “UK” options as presented, and why these aren’t split out like Scottish and Irish
• Would there be a GDPR issue of collecting more data than needed?

Recommendation

The ethnicity fields will be implemented using option one (remaining with a country specific set of codes to use).

Gender identity / gender reassignment

 
Question 22: Do you support the proposal to collect these categories for gender fields

Response	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
Yes for 2021/22	23	30	4
Yes for 2022/23	33	35	5
Undecided	10	6	3
Not applicable or not answered	4	12	72

Question 23: Please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

Burden assessment score	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
0	9	16	3
1-3	39	39	6
4-7	14	14	0
8-10	2	2	0
Not answered	6	12	74

Question 24: For providers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales - do you support the proposal to make gender reassignment a mandatory question in the Staff record?

Response	Staff
Yes for 2021/22	13
Yes for 2022/23	27
Undecided	16
Not applicable or not answered	14

Question 25: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

There was general support for the differentiation between Gender and Sex. Reiterations that clear guidance is needed (for staff and students) about why this data is collected and what it is used for. “It can be a challenge to clearly communicate why this data is important, why it is needed and how it will be used.” Clarification was sought about the purpose of collecting this for international students as not all of the countries recruited from allow gender change.

Respondents had suggestions for the guidance to follow, including following the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, a preference for the Advance HE wording of this question, and another agreeing with Stonewall’s recommended question.

For those that responded to the Staff question on making this mandatory, 8 respondents explicitly stated a strong preference to keep this question optional, and 3 respondents reiterated their support for making this mandatory. Reasons given were:

• Would put a burden on the monitoring of the completion of the field
• Find it difficult to collection this information
• Believe it will be a considerable overhead and we think staff would consider it intrusive
• Data item is already contentious and unpopular amongst staff and the [provider] questions the likely utility of sector-wide data should it be made mandatory
• Data density is low and coverage is low. Preference is to remain optional until there are greater numbers of Yes/No or don’t answer. Concerns that data quality thresholds are set which are not achievable.

A couple of providers requested that any permitted tolerances in quality assurance should be set high around these generic codes if this question was to be made mandatory.

Recommendation

The gender identity fields will be implemented as proposed, with the Staff record changing the field name to match the Student record. In the Staff record, the question will be mandatory for providers in England and Wales but will remain optional for providers in Northern Ireland.

National identity

 
Question 26: Providers in England and Wales: do you support the proposal to collect these categories for National Identity fields?

Response	ITT	Staff	Student
Yes for 2021/22	11	10	15
Yes for 2022/23	15	16	30
Undecided	6	13	8
Not applicable or not answered	5	31	30

Question 27: Providers in England and Wales: please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

Burden assessment score	ITT	Staff*	Student
0	8		15
1-3	20		32
4-7	4		12
8-10	1		3
Not answered	4		21

* Not able to summarise this due to incorrect question asked.

Question 28: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

There was some confusion in responses, as we had unintentionally made a mistake in the consultation to imply that providers in England would now be required to return National Identity in the Staff record. This was corrected in a later version.

Other similar fields are nationality, ethnicity and country of domicile. The more we ask of students, the more chance there is of getting conflicting answers from the same individuals and adding to the frustration from students when looking at similar questions and categories.

Recommendation

The national identity fields will be implemented as proposed in the consultation. This data will no longer be required from providers in England – which means they will be removed from coverage in the Data Futures record, and the field will be removed from the ITT record.
 

Religion or belief

 
Question 29: Do you support the proposal to collect these categories for Religion or belief fields?

Response	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
Yes for 2021/22	21	15	7
Yes for 2022/23	40	56	4
Undecided	3	2	0
Not applicable or not answered	6	10	72

Question 30: Which option of coding frame do you prefer?

Split by record:

Response	Staff	Student/ Student Alternative
Option one, a country specific set of codes to use	36	38
Option two, a unified set of codes across devolved administrations	31	43
Not answered	3	2

Overall:

Response	Overall
Option one, a country specific set of codes to use	54
Option two, a unified set of codes across devolved administrations	58
Not answered	5

Question 31: Option one: please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

• Option one, a country specific set of codes to use.

Burden assessment score Option one	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
0	7	5	3
1-3	39	41	5
4-7	17	17	0
8-10	1	3	0
Not answered	6	17	75

Question 32: Option two: please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

• Option two, a unified set of codes across devolved administrations.

Burden assessment score Option two	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
0	1	1	2
1-3	38	43	5
4-7	24	23	0
8-10	2	3	0
Not answered	5	13	76

Question 33: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

Questions were raised about whether this change would be for new entrants only, or resurveying would be required. One respondent asked for a mapping between the changes and others asked about what would happen with existing codes that are proposed to be removed.

A few respondents pointed out that if the Christian denominations were provided, why couldn’t denominations from other religions also be separated out, and some saying they wouldn’t support the Christian breakout without the others also broken out.

Recommendation 

The religion fields will be implemented using option one (remaining with a country specific set of codes to use).

Sex identifier

 
Question 34: Do you support the proposal to collect these categories for Sex Identifier fields?

Response	ITT	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
Yes for 2021/22	19	33	35	7
Yes for 2022/23	15	26	33	3
Undecided	3	6	4	1
Not applicable or not answered	0	5	11	72

Question 35: Please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

Burden assessment score	ITT	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
0	9	21	24	3
1-3	22	34	38	5
4-7	2	8	5	0
8-10	2	1	3	0
Not answered	2	6	13	75

Question 36: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

Respondents asked for further explanation as to the rationale behind these proposals being different to the Advance HE suggestion. Many stated that we should be collecting gender, not sex and not the current field which asks whether someone’s gender identity is the same as the gender they were assigned at birth, without asking what that identity actually is.

Clarification was also sought about the purpose of this field. Respondents could understand recording sex in the Staff record for HMRC purposes and verifying documents. But questioned why this data is needed from students.

The most common alternative suggestion made by respondents is to collect legal sex (with just female and male options) and then an additional field to specify gender (which includes a range of recommended options). However, some concerns included people may feel they are being ‘outed’ with the combination of two questions, which may increase the likelihood of people not responding.

Recommendation

The sex identifier fields are being considered further by HESA and a recommendation will be given later.

Sexual orientation

 
Question 37: Do you support the proposal to collect these categories for Sexual orientation?

Response	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
Yes for 2021/22	22	24	6
Yes for 2022/23	38	42	4
Undecided	5	6	0
Not applicable or not answered	5	11	73

Question 38: Please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

Burden assessment score	Staff	Student	Student Alternative
0	10	10	2
1-3	40	49	6
4-7	13	10	0
8-10	2	2	0
Not answered	5	12	75

Question 39: For providers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales - do you support the proposal to make sexual orientation a mandatory question in the Staff record?

Response	Staff
Yes for 2021/22	17
Yes for 2022/23	27
Undecided	12
Not applicable or not answered	14

Question 40: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

 
Representative comments

Context was requested as to the purpose of why the information is being collected. One respondent stated that “it is important that there is a clear requirement for additional data linked to legal or business change.”

Generally, support was shown for having more categories of response, but many felt it did not go far enough and made suggestions for including other options. A couple of respondents indicated that they did not like the reduction in values in this proposal, one provider saying that it would cause them problems coding it in their systems when it changed.

Concerns were raised about asking this question to international students, and whether there is any value or need for this information. One provider said they had found students from other countries are unhappy with answering this, especially where there are cultural differences or there is still criminalisation for same sex relationships.

Recommendation

The sexual orientation fields will be implemented as proposed in the consultation. In the Staff record, the question will be mandatory for providers in England and Wales but will remain optional for providers in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Proposal to collect data on marital status

 
Question 41: For providers in Northern Ireland – do you support the proposal to change the categories for marital status fields in Data Futures for 2022/23?

Response	Data Futures
Yes, for 2022/23	1
No	1
Undecided	1
Not applicable or not answered	80

Question 42: If you responded 'No', please provide information below.

A preference was given to retain the “Single” prefix to the code.

Question 43: For providers in Northern Ireland: please provide your overall burden assessment score for 'Run'.

Burden assessment score	Data Futures
0	0
1-3	2
4-7	0
8-10	0
Not answered	81

Question 44: For providers in England and Wales – do you support the additional collection of data on the marital status of staff?

Response	Staff
Yes, for 2022/23	30
No	20
Undecided	12
Not applicable or not answered	8

Question 45: If you responded ‘No’ above, please provide information below.

Many respondents questioned the purpose behind collecting this data and asked for clarification on what it would be used for. Some added that the provider themselves would not use this data internally.

Concerns were raised about how sensitive and intrusive staff members might perceive this question to be, some even stated that they would not collect it unless it became mandatory.

Some respondents were unconvinced that staff members would amend their marital status as their circumstances change, particularly if they were not clear what the data is used for and there was little incentive for them to update it. Respondents suggested that in practice, staff members only update their marital status if their name changes.

Question 46: For providers in England and Wales – please provide your burden assessment score for ‘Set up’.

Question 47: For providers in England and Wales – please provide your burden assessment score for ‘Run’.

Question 48: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

A few respondents indicated that it would be useful to collect this information, as it would allow them to monitor and check compliance against any discrimination. However, many others stated that they could not see the benefit of collecting this data.

Many stated that their software supplier or equivalent would need to make these changes, to enable them to collect the data, and that they need sufficient notice to do so.

Some concerns were raised on the quality of the data being collected, saying that they do not believe the additional burden will end up with useful data for HESA and statutory customers. Whilst some data can be easily validated, staff would need to be resurveyed every year to ensure the information was kept up to date.

One respondent raised a question about non-academic staff, which are optional to return for providers in England and Northern Ireland. Others stated that it is possible for multiple options to be true and asked for guidance on those situations.   

Recommendation

The marital status fields will be implemented as proposed in the consultation. 

Proposal to collect data on pregnancy

 
Question 49: For providers in England and Wales - how do you think this data should be collected from students?

Many suggestions were given here, and these were anonymised and passed on to the Office for Students (OfS) and Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) for consideration.

Question 50: Providers in England and Wales - do you support the additional collection of data on pregnancy from staff?

Response	Staff
Yes, for 2022/23	14
No	42
Undecided	6
Not applicable or not answered	8

Question 51: If you answered 'No', what are the reasons for this?

 
Representative comments

The majority of responses were very against collecting this data from staff. Reasons given were that this question is very sensitive and intrusive, could be upsetting or cause distress for staff members to answer and could mean a high level of people refuse to answer.  

Respondents asked for an explanation of the reasons behind wanting this data and what it would be used for. Some providers stated that they collected maternity leave from staff to know when they will be absent, but additionally collecting this question would have no benefit for them. Others raised privacy concerns and how they could defend why they were asking this question of staff or students if challenged.

Question 52: For providers in England and Wales – please provide your burden assessment score for ‘Set up’ in the Staff record.

Question 53: For providers in England and Wales – please provide your burden assessment score for ‘Run’ in the Staff record.

Question 54: For all providers – do you support the additional collection of data on pregnancy in Data Futures?

Response	Data Futures
Yes, for 2022/23	25
No	30
Undecided	23
Not applicable or not answered	5

Question 55: If you answered 'No', what are the reasons for this?

 
Representative comments

The majority of responses were against collecting this data from students, although they recognised the requirement to monitor this as a protected characteristic. Reasons given for the concern were that this question is very sensitive and intrusive, could be upsetting or cause distress for students to answer and could mean a high level of people refuse to answer. 

Respondents asked for an explanation of the reasons for wanting this data and what it would be used for as they could not see a clear policy drive behind needing to monitor this area. Some providers stated that they collected maternity leave from students to know when they will be absent, but additionally collecting this question would have no benefit for them. Others raised privacy concerns and how they could defend why they were asking this question of staff or students if challenged.

Question 56: For all providers – please provide your burden assessment score for ‘Set up’ for collection in the Data Futures record.

Question 57: For all providers – please provide your burden assessment score for ‘Run’ for collection in the Data Futures record.

Question 58: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

Some respondents reiterated previous comments about not supporting the collection of this data in either the Staff record or in Data Futures for students. Some respondents did support returning this data, but also believed that it needed to be collected sensitively and with a clear explanation on why the information is being requested and how it will benefit the individual.

A few respondents stated that the burden of changing their data collection system / methods would be lower than work that would be needed to put sufficient support around the data collection and training needed for internal staff members.

Recommendation

Providers in Northern Ireland and Scotland are not required to collect data on pregnancy. 

Providers in England and Wales will not be required to collect data on pregnancy (in Staff or Data Futures records) for 2022/23. However, OfS and HEFCW would like to explore this with providers in more detail, with the intention of finding a different way of obtaining information about pregnancy using providers’ existing data sources for 2023/24. OfS and HEFCW would encourage providers to send their thoughts on how we could collect data on information that providers already hold in this area to [email protected].

Proposal to collect data on maternity / paternity leave

 
Question 59: For providers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales, how do you think this data should be collected from students?

Many suggestions were given here, and these were anonymised and passed on to the Office for Students (OfS), Department for the Economy Northern Ireland (DfENI) and Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) for consideration.

Question 60: For providers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales – do you support the additional collection of data on maternity / parental leave?

Response	Data Futures
Yes, for 2022/23	28
No	20
Undecided	19
Not applicable or not answered	16

 

Question 61: If you answered 'No', what are the reasons for this?

Respondents asked for clarification as to the purpose of collecting this data, as many could not understand the justification for doing so. It was expected that only small numbers would be collected, and this would not likely be enough to meet publication thresholds.

This could be difficult data to collect, reasons given include that students may not want to declare this information, students may not view themselves as having maternity leave in the same way as those in work and the timing of when this would need to be collected.

Question 62: For providers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales – please provide your burden assessment score for ‘Set up’ in the Data Futures record.

Question 63: For providers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales – please provide your burden assessment score for ‘Run’ in the Data Futures record.

Question 64: Do you have any further comments to support your answers?

Some respondents reiterated their concerns from the previous question about needing to understand the requirement behind collecting this data. Others indicated that they would support collecting the data, but still recognised the difficulty in doing so and increase in burden it would place on them.

A few respondents asked about specific circumstances, such as those taking time off after miscarriage or still birth and would that be included in this field.

One respondent suggested that the process for collecting this data should be targeted, but also acknowledged that there is difficulty in doing so. Another suggested that collecting this data via UCAS may help maximise responses given. Another indicated that they ask students for information during a suspension of studies request and perhaps data collected in this way could be used instead.

Guidance was sought about how a retrospective question should be asked in the student record (especially as this proposal is at the point of enrolment) and how a provider would be expected to quality assure this data.

Recommendation

Providers in Northern Ireland are not required to collect data on maternity leave.

Providers in England and Wales will not be required to collect data on maternity (in Data Futures record) for 2022/23. However, OfS and HEFCW would like to explore this with providers in more detail, with the intention of finding a different way of obtaining information about maternity using providers’ existing data sources for 2023/24. OfS and HEFCW would encourage providers to send their thoughts on how we could collect data on information that providers already hold in this area to [email protected].

General feedback

 
Question 65: Do you have any further comments relating to items included in this consultation?

 
Representative comments

Although respondents welcome those proposed changes to better support students, there was concern about the potential of returning data which is not informative or necessary and that clearer justifications were needed. A couple of respondents asked for a copy of the Data Protection Impact Assessment that HESA would be conducting for any new data items.

Sector wide consultation events were requested, for HESA and statutory customers to explain in more detail the reasons and rationale for the widening of these data collections.

A couple of respondents suggested that there should have been an option to respond with “No” to some of the questions, which was not provided. Another respondent advised that having a consultation with both Staff and Student returns in one go was rather unwieldy and as separate people/teams were responding, it was complex to navigate to just those you are concentrating on for one return.

Further links

Data Futures 2022/23 (C22056): Notification of changes to personal characteristics data

Initial Teacher Training 2022/23 (C22053): Notification of changes to personal characteristics data

Staff 2022/23 (C22025): Notification of changes to personal characteristics data