Diversity of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance: data report for 2023
Executive summary
This is the first report presenting the °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance data for all protected characteristics as defined by the , along with measures for social mobility and caring responsibilities. We plan to survey °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) data annually to allow a direct comparison year on year.
The data in this report is therefore accurate as of 30 August 2023.
By establishing a transparent EDI data collection and reporting process for yearly snapshot reports on °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance, we hope to build confidence and trust in both °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ staff and members. If our senior leadership is willing to share their EDI data to assist in developing a more inclusive °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ, then we believe staff and members will be more likely to do the same. Together, we can co-create a diverse, inclusive, and dynamic °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ.
We recognise the importance of this data in taking our next steps in this area and the findings from this report will feed directly into our forthcoming actions for EDI in coming years.
Key messages
- The first EDI Data Snapshot Survey for °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance is completed with a good average response rate across all governance bodies with 71% of all °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board, Council and Committee members participating in the survey.
- While our governance bodies broadly have good representation of members from diverse ethnic backgrounds, members in the under 45 age bracket and women are underrepresented compared to the general population ().
- We would like to improve our understanding of why some people choose ‘prefer not to say’ and how we can improve our overall completion rates and improve data on certain characteristics of our governance bodies, such as sexual orientation, religion, and social mobility.
A note on data
We do not currently collect data from our members on the protected characteristics outlined in the Equality Act 2010. We recognise the challenges this poses in being able to make meaningful changes in representation and inclusion for °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ and are working to address this. We have been able to collect data on the diversity of our key governance groups.
Some of the groups we surveyed and the datasets these resulted in were small enough to identify individuals. We have therefore reported in percentages rather than numbers and for some characteristics and some committees, we have grouped data sets. We are aware that by doing this we risk hiding inequalities and under-representation. We also risk respondents not feeling ‘seen’ in the data.
Due to the small datasets, we opted to remove the ‘prefer not to say’ option from our calculations, as its inclusion would risk skewing data. We will continue to review our groupings over time and are open to feedback as to how we can balance the anonymity of data on individuals with our wish to become transparent about our diversity.
The set of questions we compiled reflects the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Census data collection, which is the . In addition, we have consulted the for questions on gender and sexual orientation, the for questions on disability and the for questions on social mobility.
While other sources of data categories exist, it was decided that the Stonewall, Scope and Social Mobility Commission guidance addresses and represents the respective underrepresented groups directly, thereby reflecting the needs of these groups more closely. They are reputable and trustworthy sources. Taken together, our use of ONS Census data categories, alongside the Stonewall, Scope and Social Mobility Commission Guidance, means that the data collected can be benchmarked against other datasets and adds statistical power and flexibility to our own datasets.
Completion rates
Of the expected audience, our board had a 100% completion rate, while 71% of the expected key Committee audience completed the survey. Only 49% of the expected Council audience completed the survey, suggesting that better engagement with the Council is needed to improve response rates for the subsequent surveys. We also recognise that some of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council are based outside of the UK so some of the questions may not be appropriate for other countries.
In terms of response rates per question, the °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board responded 100% to each, while Council response rates to individual questions ranged between 39% and 46% depending on the question. Aggregated Committee response rates to questions fared better than the Council’s, with response rates to individual questions ranging between 67% and 68%.
Questions that indicate a drop-off in response rates for both the Council and the key Committees are the religion, social mobility, caring responsibilities and disability questions.
Representation within our governance
This report presents data from key °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance structures, including the Board, Council and key Committees.
The key Committees comprise the following committees:
- Audit & Risk Committee
- Remunerations Committee
- Cultural Knowledge & Outreach Committee
- Membership Committee
- Practice & Policy Committee
- Education & Learning Committee
- Nominations Committee
- Standards Committee
- Nations & Regions Committee
Summary
It is useful to compare the demographic representation of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ’s governance to external sources such as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Architect’s Registration Board (ARB) to ensure we are representative of our community and wider society. We have highlighted below some of the key findings from the comparisons between °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance, ONS, ARB data and other comparators where appropriate.
For this summary, we have aggregated the data from the °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board, Council and key Committees respectively to ensure that data remains confidential and non-identifiable.
Gender
In terms of binary gender representation across °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance, women are significantly underrepresented, comprising only 32% of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance bodies compared to the general population (51%, ). When using the profession as a comparison, °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ’s binary gender representation is very close to that of the ARB. Women account for compared to the 32% of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance. Due to the very small number who identified as non-binary, there is no further analysis of this data.
Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?
Of the respondents who completed this question 100% were cisgender individuals (someone whose internal sense of gender corresponds to the sex they were assigned at birth). Compared to the general population, which is 93.5% (ONS, 2021), this is a higher rate of representation of cisgender individuals. As the ARB does not collect this data, no comparison could be made with the professional population.
Age
Both the 45 to 54 age bracket (31%) and the 55 to 64 age bracket (40%) are overrepresented across °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance compared to the general population (13.3 % and 12.6% respectively, ONS 2021). Indeed, more than 85% of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance members are older than 45 years. This data cannot be compared directly to ARB data as they used different age categories. According to the , 37% of registered architects are older than 31 years.
Disability
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance has an underrepresentation of disabled members with 15% having a disability compared to the general population (24%, ). However, a representation rate of 15% for individuals with a disability is significantly higher than that of the ARB, where only 1% of architects on the register report they have a disability.
Ethnicity
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British individuals are slightly better represented in °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (2%) compared to the professional population (1.3%, ). However, when compared the general population (4%, ), Black/African/Caribbean/Black British members are underrepresented in °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance. Similarly, Asian/British Asian individuals constitute 9% of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance compared to 7.2.% of registered architects () and 9.3% of the general population (). People of Mixed/Multiple Ethnic Backgrounds comprise 7% of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance, compared to 2% of registered architects () and 2.9% of the general population (). And individuals from ‘Other’ backgrounds are better represented in °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (4%) compared to both the general population (1.6%, ) and registered architects (1.2%, ).
Religion
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance data suggests that those across all faiths (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish) are underrepresented compared to . Direct comparisons with ARB data are difficult as they used a simplified category to capture non-religiosity. However, Christian representation in °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (39%) is higher than in the (33.9%).
Sexual orientation
Compared to (2.5%), members identifying as gay/lesbian are more represented in °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (5%). Taking together all members identifying as LGBTQ+, °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance is better represented compared to the general population (3.2%, ).
Social mobility
Individuals from a professional background (65%) are over-represented when compared to the working population in the general population (37%, ). Those from intermediate backgrounds (18%) and lower socio-economic backgrounds (15%) are both underrepresented on °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance compared to the working population in the general population, where individuals from intermediate backgrounds comprise 24%, and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds comprise 39% of the working population respectively (, 2023). Due to high ‘prefer not to say’ rates in the and the different monitoring question used, comparisons for social mobility are not possible.
Caring responsibilities
Compared to the working population generally (; ), the proportion of those with caring responsibilities for either a child or adult, or both, in the °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance is roughly the same, with 44% of working adults having caring responsibilities compared to 45% of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance. No comparisons can be made with the ARB as they do not collect caring responsibility data.
Diversity data report on °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance
All responses from the °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board, Council and key Committees.
Gender breakdown
Survey question: How would you describe your gender? (Source: )
For the reporting period above, this table shows the breakdown of genders represented by °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Governance.
Female | 32% |
Male | 68% |
Non-binary | 0% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 46% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 67% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 72% |
Gender confirmation
Survey question: Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth? (Source: )
This table shows the breakdown of gender confirmation.
Yes | 100% |
No | 0% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 46% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 62% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 70% |
Age
Survey question: Which age category are you in? (Source: )
For the reporting period above, this table shows the breakdown by age bands of our members in governance.
16 to 24 years | 0% |
25 to 34 years | 4% |
35 to 44 years | 9% |
45 to 54 years | 31% |
55 to 64 years | 40% |
65 years or over | 16% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 46% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 67% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 72% |
Disability
Survey question: Are you disabled, have an impairment, condition, or access need? (Source:)
For the reporting period above, this table shows the percentage of members who declared a disability, impairment, condition or access need.
Yes | 15% |
No | 85% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 41% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 67% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 52% |
Race/ethnicity
Survey question: How would you describe your race and/or ethnicity or ethnic background? (Source: )
This table shows the breakdown by race/ethnicity/ethnic background representing °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance.
Asian/Asian British | 9% |
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British | 2% |
Mixed/multiple ethnic background | 7% |
Other background | 4% |
White | 78% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 46% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 67% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 72% |
Religion/belief
Survey question: What is your religion or belief? (Source: )
This table shows the breakdown by religion/belief for °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance.
Agnostic | 20% |
Atheist | 15% |
Christian | 39% |
Hindu | 0% |
Jewish | 0% |
Muslim | 2% |
No belief or religion | 14% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 39% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 68% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 52% |
Sexual orientation
Survey question: How would you describe your sexual orientation? (Source: )
This table shows the breakdown of sexual orientation within °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance.
Asexual | 5% |
Bisexual | 0% |
Gay/Lesbian | 5% |
Heterosexual/Straight | 90% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 46% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 62% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 69% |
Social mobility
Survey question: What was the occupation of your main household earner when you were aged about 14? (Source: )
This table shows the breakdown of social mobility within °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance, based on the occupation of participants’ main household earner at 14.
Professional background | 65% |
Intermediate background | 18% |
Lower socio-economic background | 15% |
Other background | 0% |
This question does not apply to me | 2% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 41% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 68% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 52% |
Caring responsibilities
Survey question: Do you have any caring responsibilities for a child/children and/or another adult/s? (Source: )
This table shows whether °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance members have caring responsibilities.
Yes | 45% |
No | 55% |
Response rates
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board | 100% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Council | 41% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Committees | 68% |
°ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (all responses) | 52% |
Three key characteristics as per °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ Board, Council and Committees respectively
In this section a finer-grained data report provides more detail on three key characteristics (age, gender and race), the data of which were robust enough to disaggregate according to Board, Council and key Committees respectively.
Age
For the Board, Council and the Committees respectively, most members are 45 years and older. At 62%, the 55 to 64 years age bracket is the most representative age group in the Board. The Board is underrepresented in terms of younger members, with no members being younger than 45 years old. Likewise, the 55 to 64 years bracket is the most representative age bracket on the Council (47%) and Committee (38%) level. However, in contrast to the Board, younger members are better represented at both Council and Committee level with 16% of the Council members being between 25 and 44 years old and 10% of Committee members being between 35 and 44 years old.
Gender
In terms of binary gender, the Board representation is the closest to (men: 49%; women: 51%) with 58% of members being men and 42% of members being women. Women are nonetheless underrepresented. However, binary gender representation is significantly further away from gender parity compared to the general population on both the Council and Committees levels, with men overrepresented at 77% and 70% respectively. Women are significantly underrepresented, accounting for only 23% of Council members and 30% of Committee members.
Ethnicity
Members who identify as having a mixed ethnic background are only represented on Committee level (5%) and not represented at all on Board and Council level (0%). In contrast, members identifying as Black/African/Caribbean/Black British are represented on Board (8%) and Committee (5%) compared to both the general population (4%, ) and the profession (1.3%, ). However, there are no members identifying as Black/African/Caribbean/Black British on Council, which means, taken together, the representation of Black/African/Caribbean/ Black British Members in °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (2%) is half of that of the general UK population (4%, ).
At Committee level, no members identifying as Asian/Asian British are represented, while Board-level representation (9%) is better than that of (7.2%) and slightly lower than (9.3%). Members identifying as Asian/Asian British comprise 11% of Council members, which means when the data is taken together, Asian/Asian British representation on °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance (9%) is approaching representation in the general population (9.3%, ). Members identifying with the ‘Other Ethnic Background’ category comprise 8% of Board members and 10% of Committee members compared to (1%) and (2.1%). Finally, members identifying as White comprise 88% of Council and taking all governance bodies together, comprise 76% of °ÄÃÅÍõÖÐÍõ governance, compared to (88%) and the general population (81.7%, ).
Appendix A: Data groupings - where groupings have been used
Race - Asian/ Asian British: Bangladeshi, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, any other Asian background
Race - Black/ African / Caribbean / Black British: Black British, Black, African, Caribbean, any other Black background
Race - Mixed / Multiple ethnic background: Asian & White, Black African & White, Black Caribbean & White, any other mixed or multiple ethnic background
Race - Other Identities: Arab, Indigenous Peoples, any other ethnic background
Race – White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British Irish, Gypsy or Irish Traveller, Roma, any other white background
Occupation – Professional background: Modern professional and traditional professional occupations such as: teacher, nurse, physiotherapist, social worker, musician, police officer (sergeant or above), software designer, accountant, solicitor, medical practitioner, scientist, civil or mechanical engineer or Senior, middle, or junior managers or administrators such as: finance manager, chief executive, large business owner, office manager, retail manager, bank manager, restaurant manager, warehouse manager Occupation – Intermediate background: Clerical and intermediate occupations such as: secretary, personal assistant, call centre agent, clerical worker, nursery nurse OR Small business owners who employed less than 25 people such as: corner shop owners, small plumbing companies, retail shop owner, single restaurant or cafe owner, taxi owner, garage owner
Occupation – Lower Socio-economic background: Technical and craft occupations such as: motor mechanic, plumber, printer, electrician, gardener, train driver OR Routine, semi-routine manual, and service occupations such as: postal worker, machine operative, security guard, caretaker, farm worker, catering assistant, sales assistant, HGV driver, cleaner, porter, packer, labourer, waiter
Appendix B: Sources
Architects Registration Board, 2023:
Architects Registration Board, 2023:
Business in the Community and Ipsos, 2022:
House of Commons, 2023:
Office for National Statistics, 2021:
Office for National Statistics, 2021:
Office for National Statistics, 2023:
Office for National Statistics, 2021:
Office for National Statistics, 2021:
Office for National Statistics, 2021:
PWC, 2022:
Scope, 2019:
Social Mobility Commission, 2023:
Stonewall, 2019: