Gender Equality Scheme Annual Report 30th April 2009 Staff and Student Equality and Diversity Office

Gender Equality Scheme Annual Report 30th April 2009 Staff and Student Equality and Diversity Office

Vice-Chancellor s Introduction Brunel University is pleased to publish the Gender Equality Annual Report 2009. The Report provides a progress update on Brunel University's Gender Equality Scheme (GES) 2007 2010 and the 2008 Annual Report. The Gender Equality Annual Report is hugely influenced by the University s Strategic Plan and has served as a tool to revisit the University s strategic position when ensuring gender equality. As a University, there is an understanding that there is still work to be done with regards to gender equality. This need has been further illustrated through the Gender Equality Annual Report 2009 and the Gender Equality Consultation that informed its development. For these reasons the University will continue to ensure that we effectively meet the needs of our staff, students and community. Approved by: Professor Chris Jenks Vice Chancellor ii

Foreword The Gender Equality Scheme s Annual Report 2009 provides a progress update on Brunel University s Gender Equality Scheme and Action Plan (GES) 2007 2010 and the Gender Equality Scheme s Annual Report 2008. The GES is a dynamic and effective tool for positive and progressive change. To appreciate the full context in which the University s GES operates, it must be read in conjunction with the University s Corporate Statement of Intent and Purpose for Equal Opportunities. The Statement of Intent and Purpose for Equal Opportunities helps to demonstrate the University s commitment to valuing a diverse community; it contains policies for Age, Disability and Race. The Statement of Intent and Purpose for Equal Opportunities provides a link between the GES and the University s Corporate Strategic Plan 2008-2012 with specific reference to providing an enabling environment where there is a strong sense community and shared purpose. Brunel University values your comments The University welcomes feedback on the Gender Equality Scheme, its Action Plan and the Annual Report. The University is interested in any positive or negative impact that this Scheme may have on any group(s) in respect of gender, marital or civil partnership status, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, class status, age, or other characteristics. Your views can be sent by email to diversebrunel@brunel.ac.uk or in writing to: (GES Consultation) Equality and Diversity Office, Room 307, Wilfred Brown Building, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH. 3

1. Annual Update and Strategic Direction 1.1 The publication of the Gender Equality Scheme 2007 and the Gender Equality Annual Report 2008, has seen Brunel University further embed Gender Equality into the University s processes, polices and functions. 1.2 The context of the University s Strategic Plan 2008-2012 is one of continuing change and as always, the promotion of equality and diversity is essential in achieving these aims. The University goes beyond legislative compliance associated with equality to ensure that it meets the needs of all of its staff, students and local community. With regards to equality legislation, the University has continued to adopt best practice and innovative ideas to achieve fairness for all. 1.3 This document reports on progress made on the Gender Equality Scheme 2007 2012 and the Gender Equality Annual Report 2008. A review on the process made since publication will be outlined together with the challenges met. 1.4 This Annual Report was developed through the application of the following specific duties: i. Consulting with and involving the University s stakeholders (staff, students, visitors and our partners) ii. iii. Gathering and evaluating relevant information on how the University s policies and practices affect gender equality. Reviewing the Implementation of Actions set out within the agreed allocated time frame in the Gender Equality Scheme and its 2008 Annual Report. 1.5 This Report confirms and supports the University s commitment to fulfil its gender equality duties by making them central to the way the University carries out its functions. The University will continue to: i. Promote equality of opportunity between men, women and transgender men and women. ii. Eliminate discrimination that is unlawful under the Equality Act (2006) and the Sex Discrimination Act (1975). iii. iv. Eliminate harassment relating to gender or transgender issues. Promote positive attitudes towards all people regardless of their gender. v. Encourage equal participation of men and women. vi. Take steps to meet the needs of all people regardless of gender and gender preference. 4

1.6 The Gender Equality Annual Report is set out under three key headings: i. Overview of Progress Key Areas of Consideration (including evidence of equality impact accessing policies and Equal Opportunities Data). ii. iii. Results of Consultations and Evidence of Information Gathered. Outline of Progress made towards Meeting our Targets, as set out in the Gender Equality Action Plan 2007 and its 2008 update. 5

2. Overview of Progress and Key Areas of Consideration 2.1 Accountability and Scrutiny 2.1.1 The Gender Equality Scheme and the implementation of its Action Plan is the ultimate responsibility of the University s Council and Senate. The day to day operational delivery of the Action Plan is embedded within the University s policies and functions. 2.1.2 The Equality and Diversity Office ensures that the Gender Equality Annual Report is published on time, that the actions within the Scheme meet statutory requirements and achieved within the allocated timeline. 2.2 Publication 2.2.1 This Annual Report will be made available to all staff, students and partners via the University s internet and intranet sites. Paper copies can be made available upon request by sending an email to diversebrunel@brunel.ac.uk 2.3 Equality Impact Assessment 2.3.1 The Impact Assessment Review Group is chaired by the Director of Human Resources. The Group has continued to review policies that have been equality impact assessed for approval. The Group review policies either through its standard process of completed pro-forma or by approving comments on Senate and Council papers. This is audited by the Group each term. The Group has also been proactive in formally requesting that certain policies be equality impact assessed. 2.4 Equality Projects 2.4.1 Pay and Progression Working Group 2.4.1.1 The Pay and Progression Working Group has been established to investigate whether there are direct or indirect barriers to the promotion of female academic staff and make recommendations on removing any such barriers. The group is chaired by the University s Equality Champion. 2.4.2 Project Heidi - Higher Education Information Database for Institutions (Heidi) Data Collection Project 2.4.2.1 Working with the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) and The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), the University is a member of the project group dedicated to developing an equality function in the Higher Education Information Database for Institutions (Heidi). The first phase of the project will be rolled out in August 2009. 2.4.2.2 The project aims to allow institutions to draw down data in relation to relevant equality categories including disability. The project aims to allow data draw down in relation to each equality area where HESA collects data. This will ensure the HESA data set is being used effectively by those responsible for planning and implementing equality and diversity within institutions. 6

2.5 Safety Importantly, institutions will be able to use the system for comparison against identified benchmarked institutions. 2.5.1 Although, identified as one of the main areas by participating staff and students in the Gender Equality Scheme 2007 and the Annual Report in 2008, the perception of safety for participating staff and students in the Gender Equality Questionnaire 2009 has improved significantly. 2.5.2 Over the last 3 years, the University has increased its provision of security on campus. The University s draft Security Plan holds defined security objectives which feed from the University s imperative to Provide an enabling environment where the campus is safe and attractive (Strategic Plan 2008 2012). 2.5.3 In the last 12 months, the Security Department have implemented a variety of projects aimed at improving both the perception of safety and actual safety levels on campus. In February 2009, the Department surveyed 141 students 1 regarding security issues on campus. The survey looked at 5 areas namely; i. How safe do you feel at Brunel? Most students who responded felt safe at the University with 45% feeling very safe and 39% feeling usually safe. 1% of respondents felt not very safe at all. ii. What is your biggest fear at the University? Respondents identified Anti-social Behaviour (37%) and Personal Attack (28%) as their biggest fears on campus. Fears relating to Drugs and Vehicle Crimes were low at 3% and 5% respectively. iii. What do you think of the Security Officers? 46% and 40% of respondents thought the University s Security Officers were either usually professional or very professional. 7% thought they were not always professional and another 8% thought them unprofessional. iv. What do you think of the Security Officers uniform? 11% of respondents stated that the uniform looked, Too much like the police with another 4% stating that the uniform looked intimidating. The majority felt that the uniform either looked good (47%) or reassuring (33%). v. Have you visited the Security Department website? Most of the respondents (82%) had not visited the security website. 2.5.4 Other activities by the Security Department include a significant increase in CCTV coverage on campus with the installation of about 30 new CCTV cameras and agreements to install Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras at the main 1 Not all students answered each question. 7

barriers. Members of the security staff wear head camera units for certain duties such as Halls Patrol, which takes places at night. 2.5.5 The Department is accredited under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme giving Officers additional powers such as the power to demand names and addresses from anyone acting in an anti-social manner. The Department liaises with the Police Safer Neighbourhoods Team and are members of the Safer Neighbourhoods Ward Panel. 2.5.6 Security Officers are trained in first aid and dealing with distressed or disturbed students. The Department has employed an additional female member bring the total to 2 female members of staff of which one is a shift leader. This is particularly important for liaising with female staff and students when needed. 2.5.7 There is a risk management protocol for risking rating events on campus and identifying corresponding security requirements. Significant security activities are reported monthly to the Senior Management Group as a formal Security Report. 2.6 Staff Development 2.6.1 Staff development programmes have continued to focus on rising equality awareness as well as providing appropriate skills to staff members regardless of gender. The Pro-Vice Chancellor for Strategy and Staff Development chairs the Staff Development Strategy Group. The group aims to enable the University to provide a comprehensive and coherent programme of Staff Development that supports the successful delivery of the key imperatives and goals of the University s Strategic Plan 2008 2012. 2.6.2 This further focuses on the University s overall staff development commitments that include gender awareness and equality programmes. 2.7 Equality Data 2.7.1 In order to ensure improvement to services, the University has continued to analyse both student and staff equality data sets. 2.7.2 The Student Equality and Diversity Office continue to monitor and report on student equality breakdown annually by gender, disability, age and ethnicity. This includes information relating to student progression and retention. 2.7.3 The Human Resources Department continues to monitor and report on staff equality breakdown annually by gender, disability, age and ethnicity. Information relating to staff recruitment, retention and promotion are also collected. 2.7.4 This report contains statistical information relating to students gender breakdown that was extracted from SITS, the University s Student Information and Record System. Statistical information for staff was extracted from Northgate, the Human Resources Information Systems. 2.7.5 In summary, analysis shows that: i. Although with a slight majority, there are more female staff members at Brunel than male staff members. 8

ii. iii. The pay gap between men and women at the University is at the same level as the wider economy (c18%). Although with a slight majority, there are more males studying at Brunel than females and this has been the case for the last 4 years. 2.7.6 Please see below for statistical information and analysis relating to the gender of student and staff. 2.8 Staff Gender Equality Data 2.8.1 Gender Breakdown The chart below provide a summary of the University s staff gender breakdown for academic years 2007/2008, 2006/2007 and 2005/2006 2. There has not been a significant shift in the percentage of male and female staff at the University in the last 3 years. Chart 1 - Staff Gender Breakdown (%) 2005/2006-2007/2008 Year Males Females 2005/2006 1510 1589 2006/2007 1485 1599 2007/2008 1515 1532 Table 1 - Staff Gender Breakdown (#) 2005/2006-2008 / 2009 2 Please note that the data used has been taken from Northgate (HR Database information Systems. Data reported in this section reflects the University s composition as of 31 July of each year. 9

2.8.2 Gender and Pay The charts below refer to staff Gender by Grade for 2009, 2008 and 2007. In 2009, 61% of those on academic grades are males while 67% of those on non-academic grades are females. There is currently an insignificant difference in number of males and female on academic related grades; 262 are females compared to 264 males. Further analysis will need to be done in order to see how male and females in this category are distributed. When compared to the last 2 years, female academic professors remain significantly low. There have been 3 female professors since 2007, bringing the total to 26, compared to an average of 105 male professors in the same period. In the last 3 years, females have remained in the majority within non-academic grades with a 2:1 ratio. Chart 2 - Staff Gender Breakdown by Grade 2009 10

Chart 3 - Staff Gender Breakdown by Grade 2008 Chart 4 - Staff Gender Breakdown by Grade 2007 11

2.9 Student Gender Equality Data 2.9.1 Gender Breakdown The chart below provide a summary of the Student Gender Breakdown for the academic years 2008/2009, 2007/2008, 2006/2007 and 2005/2006 respectively 3. Chart 5 - Student Gender Breakdown (%) 2005/2006-2008 / 2009 Year Males Females 2005/2006 6738 6166 2006/2007 6880 6602 2007/2008 7228 6655 2008/2009 7825 7053 Table 2 - Student Gender Breakdown (#) 2005/2006-2008 / 2009 Although the total number of females at the University has increased steadily by 887 in the last 4 years, the total percentage of females has decreased by an average of 1%. The last 4 years has shown a 4% differential average between male and female students with males reporting at a majority. 3 Please note that the data used has been taken from the SITS database on or close to the 1st of December for each year's data respectively. 12

The total number of male students at the University has increased steadily over the last four years by 1087 students, which on average is a 1% increase. Year Gender Total 2005/6 2005/6 2006/7 Female Male Female Courses completed normally Transferred - Variety of Reasons 5 % who transferred Most populous reason for leaving 5522 4941 581 10.52% Other 5511 4810 701 14.57% Academic 5439 5066 373 6.86% Academic 2006/7 Male 5387 4817 570 11.83% Academic Female 2007/8 5739 5408 331 6.12% Academic Male 2007/8 5845 5330 515 9.66% Academic 2.9.2 Student Progression The table below shows the gender progression paths for Undergraduates 4. Table 1 - Progression Channels Undergraduates - Degree and Non-Degree Courses 2005/2006 2007/2008 The percentage of students transferring has continued to decrease and is currently at its lowest with ~9% drop in the number of those students transferring. Over the illustrated 3 years, when compared with male students, less females transfer. This equates to an average of 12% males and 8% females transferring. This provides on average a 4% difference between male and female students who transfer. Both males and females transfer rate reached the lowest point in 2007/2008 academic year. However, there was still a significant 3.5% difference between males and females who transfer with males reporting at a higher percentage of ~10%. 4 Data provided focuses only on degree and non-degree UG courses only and taken from SiTs(February 2009) 5 According to Sits Reasons for Transfer includes: Academic avg. 145 per year; Appellant - result not known; Course Completed or Progressed Normally; Debtor completed result unknown; Exclusion; Financial; Health / Death avg. 5 per year; Other; Personal; Student Did Not Arrive; Transfer to other Institution; Written Off After Lapse of Time. 13

2.9.3 Student Awards Below is the gender breakdown for Degree Attainment for the academic years 2005/2006, 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 6. Chart 12- Undergraduate Degree Classification by Gender 2005/2006 2007/2008 Gender Degree 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 Female First 144 54.96% 155 49.84% 167 53.18% Male First 118 45.04% 156 50.16% 147 46.82% Table 2 Undergraduate Degree Classification by Gender and 1 st Class Degree Attainment 2005/2006 2007/2008 In 2007/2008 academic year females gained more 1 st Class Honours in all subjects than males with a ratio of 53:47 (female: male) which was a difference of twenty students. In the previous academic year, the ratio was 50:50 though slightly more males were awarded First Class Honours. Gender Degree 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 Female 2.1 657 57.73% 736 58.27% 705 56.49% Male 2.1 481 42.27% 527 41.73% 543 43.51% Table 3 - Undergraduate Degree Classification by Gender and Upper Second Class Degree Attainment 2005/2006 2007/2008 Again, in the 2007/2008 academic year females gained more 2:1 degrees than males. A ratio of 57:43 (female: male) which equates to a bigger gap between females and males with First Class Honours. For the last three academic years, the trend has been that more females than males are being awarded 2:1 degrees. 6 Please note that the data provided focuses only on UG students only. 14

Gender Degree 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 Female 2.2 266 43.18% 377 49.41% 375 51.23% Male 2.2 350 56.82% 386 50.59% 357 48.77% Table 4 - Undergraduate Degree Classification by Gender and Lower Second Class Degree Attainment 2005/2006 2007/2008 More females in 2007/2008 were awarded 2:2 degrees than males. However, the trend before 2007/2008 was for males to receive more 2:2 grades than females. Gender Degree 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 Female 3 30 31.91% 31 32.63% 34 37.36% Male 3 64 68.09% 64 67.37% 57 62.64% Table 5 - Undergraduate Degree Classification by Gender and Third Class Attainment Degree 2005/2006 2007/2008 For Undergraduate classification, males with a 3 rd Class outnumber females at a ratio of 37:63 (females:males). This has been the trend for the last three academic years. On average 66% of those awarded a 3 rd Class have been males. 15

3. Results of Consultations and Evidence of Information Gathered 3.1 The consultation for the Gender Equality Scheme Annual Report took the form of electronic questionnaires and paper questionnaires. 3.2 Staff and Students were encouraged to complete the questionnaires and the results are incorporated into the 2009 Annual Report. The Gender Equality Questionnaires were based on the priorities and action plans as identified in the Gender Equality Scheme 2007 2010 and the Gender Equality Scheme Annual Report 2008. 3.3 New Staff and Students 7 responding to questions about the previous academic year were eliminated from any comparative statistics. 3.4 The following areas were considered for the questionnaire: i. Awareness of the Scheme and it s effects ii. A review of the Priorities identified as a result of the GES consultations which took place in 2007 and 2008. iii. A comparison of the University s Equality Breakdown against the number of people who participate in the GES survey. 3.5 Student consultation took the form of electronic questionnaires via U-link and paper questionnaire. Staff consultation took the form of electronic questionnaires. 3.6 Questionnaires 3.6.1 The questions within the questionnaire mirrored the 2007 and 2008 Gender Equality Questionnaires but with a few improvements, based on feedback. The aim was to allow for a comparison on previous academic years. 3.6.2 Consultation via questionnaires ran for two weeks during March 2008 and the results were analysed for this Annual Report. 3.6.3 The Gender Equality Questionnaire was advertised via IntraBrunel and a pop up message for students logged onto U-link 3.6.4 The following areas were covered for both the staff and student questionnaires: i. Awareness of the Gender Equality Scheme ii. Improvements to Gender Equality Issues since the implementation of the Gender Equality Scheme iii. Safety of Male and Female Students around Campus iv. Order of Priority for Staff and Students v. Issues around Gender Discrimination and Harassment Please turn over for a breakdown of results. 7 Staff and students that were not members of the University during academic year 2007/8 16

4. Result of Gender Equality Questionnaire 2009 4.1 Staff The following charts illustrate the breakdown of staff participation in the 2009 Gender Questionnaire. This is further broken-down into Gender, Age, Disability, Ethnicity and Child- Care Responsibilities. Chart 13 - Staff Participants v. Staff Population Chart 14 Gender Breakdown (Staff Participants) Chart 15 Age Breakdown (Staff Participants) Chart 16 Disability Breakdown (Staff Participants) Chart 17- Ethnicity Breakdown (Staff Participants) Chart 18 Childcare Breakdown (Staff Participants) 17

In total 285 staff members participated out of a total staff population of 3047 [Equality and Diversity Annual Report 2008 (Employment)]. This figure equates to ~9% of the total number of staff currently at the University. A breakdown of participants is provided below 8. Gender: Although the total staff population of male to female remains static at 48:52 a much larger proportion of females participated in the questionnaire. This is as follows: 2007: 64% 2008: 75% 2009: ~ 74% Age: The majority of participating staff (67%) fall into the 25-49 age group. In 2007 and 2008 the figure was 65%. However, this age group represent only 50% of the total population of staff. At 41% of total staff population, the second biggest age group is 50-64 which represent 30% of the participants. This is more representative than in 2007 (24%) but less so than 2008 (31%) *Disability: There is an increase, from 3% (2008) to 5% (2009), in the number of participants in the questionnaire who have a declared disability. Staff with a declared disability represent 1% of the total staff population. Child-Care Responsibilities: The number of participating staff with child-care responsibilities has shown a gradual increase each year. 2007: 7.6% 2008: 9.2% 2009: 13.0 % *Ethnicity: The breakdown of participating staff by ethnicity shows little difference between 2008 and 2009. The percentage of participating staff from ethnic minorities in 2009 (16%) is lower than total staff population (23%). 8 Comparisons to 2007 cannot be made as the 2007 questionnaire did not ask questions relating to disability or ethnicity. Staff total figures for 2008 and 2009 based on Equality and Diversity Annual Report 2008 (employment) from November 2008. 18

4.1.1 Awareness of the Gender Equality Scheme (Staff) Chart 19 Awareness of the GES Staff Gender Breakdown Chart 20 Awareness of the GES ( First and Non- First Year Staff) Overall compared to last year, staff awareness of the GES increased significantly amongst those surveyed (9%). Awareness amongst staff members in 2008 was 68%, this increased to 77% in 2009. Awareness of the GES increased, by 7% amongst staff in their first year of employment at Brunel. This was 60% in 2008 and 67% in 2009. Awareness of the GES increased, by 7% amongst staff that have been at Brunel longer than 12 months. This was 72% in 2008 and 79% in 2009. In 2009, awareness of the GES was higher amongst participating male staff (81%) than participating female staff (77%). 19

4.1.2 Improvement in Gender Issues (Staff) Chart 21 Improvements to Gender Equality (All Staff) Chart 22 Improvement to Gender Equality (Males) Chart 23 Improvement to Gender Equality (Females) A significant majority (66.5%) of those who completed the question relating to the improvement to Gender stated that they did not know if there has been any improvement to Gender Equality issues in the last 12 months. ~18% of those surveyed indicated that there had been an improvement to Gender Equality issues whilst ~16% suggested that there had not been improvements in this area. 20

4.1.3 Safety (Staff) Chart 24 Perception of Safety at Brunel amongst Staff Chart 25 Perception of Safety at Brunel Staff Gender Breakdown A total of 258 staff out of 285, who answered this questionnaire, have been at Brunel longer than one year. 23% of females thought Brunel was safer, while 2% thought it was less safe. For men, 22% thought it was safer whilst 1% thought it was less safe. When compared to last year, the percentage of staff who thought safety had remained the same in increased from: 43% to 65% in males. 47% to 55% in females. Overall most staff either felt that the University was a safer place or that the level of safety remained the same. This is a significant shift from the 2007 questionnaire, where a significant majority perceived the Campus as less safe. 21

4.1.4 Order of Priorities (Staff) Issue Order of Importance Pay and Progression Work- Life Balance Policies and Procedures Harassment and Bullying Staff Training and Development 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th 5 th Table 6 - Order of Priorities 2009 as agreed by 62% of participating Staff Order of Importance Issues of Importance to Staff who disagree to 2006/2007 s Order of Importance 1 st Pay and Progression 2009 2008 2007 Pay and Progression Pay and Progression 2 nd Development Work-Life Balance Training and Work-Life Balance Harassment and 3 rd Bullying 4 th Training and Development 5 th Policies and Procedures Work-Life Balance Harassment and Bullying Policies and Procedures Policies and Procedures Harassment and Bullying Training and Development Table 7 - Order of Priorities (not including Safety ) identified by minority of Staff 2007-2009 Table 6 9 mirrors the original order of importance identified by staff completing the GES questionnaire in 2007. 62% of staff agreed in 2009 that the order identified in 2007 is still applicable. 58% agreed with this order in 2008. For the staff members that disagree with the Order, 42% in 2008 and 38% in 2009, their identified Order of Priorities is illustrated in Table 7. For staff that disagree with the order of importance the following findings were identified: 9 N.B. Response Total, is calculated by adding the totals of where (high priority) is assigned 10 points, and 5 (low priority) is assigned 2 points. 22

Pay and Progression and Work life Balance has remained the 2 main priority areas for all staff. Pay and Progression has remained the main priority over the last 3 years. Amongst minority of staff, Policies and Procedures remain in the 5 th place. Majority of staff rate it in 3 rd position. In the past, for all staff, Harassment and Bullying together with Training and Development has moved between the 4 th and 5 th position. In 2009, for the first time, amongst a minority of staff members, Harassment and Bullying moved to 3 rd position. 4.1.5 Reporting Gender Discrimination and Harassment (Staff) Chart 26 Reporting Discrimination (Staff) Chart 27 Reporting Discrimination (Female Staff) Chart 28 Reporting Discrimination Male Staff) Based on the data presented, there is more awareness on where to report gender discrimination amongst female staff (63%) than amongst male staff (58%) that completed the questionnaire. Overall, 63% of staff know where to report gender discrimination. 23

4.1.6 Experiences of Discrimination and Harassment (Staff) Chart 29 Suffer Discrimination (Staff) Chart 30 Suffer Discrimination (Male Staff) Chart 31 Suffer Discrimination ( Female Staff) Overall, 21% of staff have experienced gender discrimination, compared to 79% have not experienced gender discrimination. Gender discrimination for male staff has increased slightly from last year: 2008-17% 2009-18% Gender discrimination for female staff has decreased by 2% from last year: 2008-24% 2009-22% 24

4.1.7 Child-Care Facilities on Campus (Staff) Chart 32 Importance of Childcare Facilities (Staff) Chart 33 Importance of Childcare Facilities by Gender (Staff) The importance of childcare facilities for staff on campus has dropped significantly year on year. It has seen a 12% deduction since 2007. The percentage of staff surveyed in the 2009, who considered child-care facilities on campus as a high priority was the same, regardless of gender (18%). The University is continually promoting the use of child-care vouchers and has seen a marked increase in the number of staff taking up the Scheme. Staff are increasingly utilising the tax/ni free benefits associated to the Scheme, as well as the nursery discounts offered to University staff ranging from 5-10%. In 2008 71 staff members used the vouchers; this increased to 94 staff members in 2009. 25

4.2 Students Chart 34 Gender Questionnaire Student Participants v. Students Population in 2008/2009 Chart 35 Gender Breakdown of Gender Questionnaire Participants 2009 (Students) 10 In total, 791 students participated in the Gender Equality Questionnaire. This makes up about 5% of the total student population at Brunel. The number of students who participated in the survey equates to over a 200% increase when compared to the number of students that participated in the Gender Equality Questionnaire in 2008. 471 more participants took part compared to last year. Most of the questionnaires were completed electronically with 576 (~73%) questionnaires being completed on line compared to 215 (~23%) completed on paper. This is a remarkable shift from the traditional way in which students have chosen to complete the Gender Equality Questionnaire, which has been more successful via paper submission rather than electronic submission. When compared with the Gender Breakdown of Students at Brunel (Please see Chart 35) the participants who responded to the questionnaire do not reflect the student gender breakdown. More females responded to the questionnaire, though more males study at the Brunel. 10 For a full equality breakdown (Disability, Age, Ethnicity and Childcare) of students who participated in the Gender Equality Questionnaire, please see Appendix 1. 26

4.2.1 Awareness of the Gender Equality Scheme (Students) Chart 36 Awareness of the GES (Student Gender Breakdown) Chart 37 Awareness of the GES (First and Non-First Year Students) In total 782 students answered this question with a significant 71% of students indicating that they were unaware of the GES. There has been a 5% increase amongst of Male Students (32%) in 2009 compared to 27% in 2008 aware of the GES. Awareness of the GES amongst Female Students remains at 26% for 2009; this was the same percentage for 2008. Likewise the awareness of the GES amongst students in their first year did not change from last year, this remains at 30%. Although lower than those in their first years of study, awareness amongst students that have been at Brunel for more than 12 months increased slightly from 25% to 28%. 27

4.2.2 Improvement of Gender Equality Issues (Students) Chart 38 Improvements to Gender Equality (All Students) Chart 39 Improvements to Gender Equality (Males) Chart 40 Improvement to Gender Equality (Females) 385 student responses were analysed. Students who have not been at Brunel for over 12 months were excluded from any analysis. In 2009, ~15% of males and ~11% of females felt there had been an improvement in gender equality issues. This represents a 3% for Males and 4% for Females fall when compared to 2008. In 2009,~7% of both males and females felt there had been no improvement in gender equality issues. This is less than the percentage of students in 2008 who felt there was less improvement. In 2008, 11% of Males and 13% of Females felt there had been no improvement. This represents a 4% and a significant 6% fall respectively. 28

4.2.3 Safety Chart 41 - Perception of Safety at Brunel amongst Students. Chart 42 Perception of Safety at Brunel (Student Gender Breakdown) 395 student responses were analysed. Students who have not been at Brunel for over 12 months were excluded from any analysis. Overall most students felt the University was either safer than last year or that the level of safety on campus remained the same. In the 2008 questionnaire, 10% of male and 7% of female students felt that Brunel was less safe. These percentages fell to 3% for males and females. Representing an 7% fall in males and 4% fall in females, this suggests that the number of students who feel less safe around the campus has dropped significantly for both genders. 33% of male students felt that Brunel was a safer place than last year compared to 21% of female students. When compared to the results in 2008, the difference in opinion between both genders remains at 12%. 29

4.2.4 Order of Priorities (Students) Issues Order of Importance Training and Development 1 st Study and Employability 2 nd Study-life Balance 3 rd Harassment and Bullying 4 th Policies and Procedures 5 th Table 8 - Order of Priorities 2009 as agreed by 63% of participating Students The above table mirrors the Order of Priority identified by students completing the GES questionnaire in 2007. In 2009, the majority of students (63%) agree with the Order of Priority identified by students who participated in the GES questionnaire in 2007. 37% of students disagree with the Order of Priority identified by majority of students in 2009. The Order of Priority identified by the minority who disagreed with Table 8 is illustrated in the table below. Importantly, this is identical to the order identified by disagreeing students (30%) in 2008. Issues of Importance to Students who Disagree to the 2006/2007 s Order of Order of Priority Importance 2009 (37%) 2008 (30%) 2007 (30%) 1 st Study and Employability Study and Employability Training and Development 2 nd Training and Development Harassment and 3 rd Bullying Training and Development Harassment and Bullying Study and Employability Study / Life Balance Study / Life 4 th Balance Policies and 5 th Procedures Study / Life Balance Policies and Procedures Harassment and Bullying Policies and Procedures Table 9 - Order of Priorities (not including Safety ) identified by minority of Students 2007-2009. 30

Study and Employability was placed in 1 st place by the minority (37%), however 63% of students felt it was the 2 nd most important priority to them. Training and Development was placed 2 nd important priority to them. however, the majority felt it was the most Importantly, participating students saw Training and Development and Study and Employability as the 2 most important priorities whilst issues relating to Policies and Procedures remained in 5th place. This suggests that issues relating to Policies and Procedures were of little or no interest to students. Students who disagree with the Order of Priority placed Harassment and Bullying in the 3 rd position and Study/Life Balance in 4 th position. In contrast, majority of students revised these priorities placing Study/Life Balance before Harassment and Bullying. It is important to note to that the Order of Priorities for both of student groups where similar regardless of their gender classification. N.B. Response Total, is calculated by adding the totals where 1 (high priority) is assigned 10 points, and 5 (low priority) is assigned 2 points. 31

4.2.5 Reporting Gender Discrimination and Harassment Chart 43 Reporting Discrimination (Students) Chart 44 Reporting Discrimination (Female Students) Chart 45 Reporting Discrimination Male (Students) 775 students answered this question. An equal number of males and females stated that they know where to report cases of potential harassment or discrimination. Their total sum equates to 20.5% of respondents. With a 5% reduction from 2008, 79% of respondents in 2009 did not know where to report a case of gender discrimination or harassment. Since 2008, the University has put considerable efforts and resources into Anti-Bullying and Anti-Harassment Campaigns and further work is continuing in this area. *** 14 students that did not specify their gender when answering this question, 13 answering no and one answering yes. This data was not included in the production of the above graph. 32

4.2.6 Suffered Gender Discrimination and Harassment Chart 46 Suffered Discrimination (Students) Chart 47 Suffered Discrimination (Male Students) Chart 48 Suffered Discrimination (Female Students) In total, 782 student responses were analysed. 10% of students stated that they have suffered discrimination because of their gender. 5% of female students compared to 4% of males stated that they have suffered discrimination and harassment at Brunel because of their gender 11. These percentages have reduced since 2008 where 7% of males compared to 6% of females stated that they suffered discrimination. This represents a 3% drop in the percentage of males and a slight drop of 1% drop for females. Significantly, 85% of respondents stated that they had not experienced gender discrimination at Brunel. 11 14 students did not specify their gender. Of these 14 students, 1 answered Yes and the other 13 answered No. 33

4.2.7 Child-Care Facilities on Campus (Students) Chart 49 Importance of Childcare Facilities (Students) Chart 40 Importance of Childcare Facilities by Gender (Students) Compared to last year, there is a 4% increase in the percentage of students who regard childcare as high priority. The 2009 questionnaire suggested that 12% of students, most of whom do not have children / childcare responsibilities themselves, see childcare as important. 34