National Equality Outcomes Data and Reporting Guidance

Introduction

In the Tackling Persistent Inequalities Together report, SFC and EHRC published the National Equality Outcomes (NEOs) alongside a series of commitments to support institutions in progressing with the NEOs and measuring impact.
This guidance sets out the process for adopting the NEOs as institutional equality outcomes, a guide from EHRC on setting meaningful action plans to support achievement of the NEOs, and reporting guidance for the NEOs. Attached to this document is a table that maps the data available to institutions in relation to each NEO and how institutions can access this data. This table is intended to support institutions in measuring the NEOs and setting baselines.

Setting Equality Outcomes

An equality outcome is a measurable result that a listed authority aims to achieve in order to further one or more needs of the general duty. The National Equality Outcomes are focused on inequalities which are persistent at a national scale and institutions are strongly encouraged to adopt the NEOs that are relevant to their institution.
Equality outcomes should not:

Improve the lives of everyone (not everyone is in a disadvantaged group).
Duplicate other specific duty
Duplicate existing Equality Act 2010 obligations.

But they should:

Bring practical improvements to the lives of those who experience discrimination and disadvantage.
Change things for individuals, communities and society as a consequence of your work.
Narrow or remove the biggest inequalities experienced by particular groups.
Be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound).
Be bold and ambitious.

Equality outcomes can be short-, medium- or long-term. On a practical level, this means that when institutions are thinking about their 2025-29 equality outcomes, they might want to consider:

Concluding the outcomes they adopted in 2021 or 2023 – if the institution has done all it can, or evidence points the institution towards prioritising other equality outcomes.
Continuing some of their equality outcomes (with revisions based upon the institution’s resource, learning and evidence etc.) for some of the 2025-29 cycle, or set them subject to review in, say, 2027.
Continuing some of their equality outcomes (with revisions based upon the institutions resource, learning and evidence etc) for the whole 2025-29 cycle. These are long-term outcomes, likely focussed on some of the most difficult and entrenched inequalities, and it may take longer than one reporting cycle to achieve impact.

SFC and EHRC are aware that not all institutions will progress every NEO. This could be due to resource or capacity issues or local evidence demonstrating that a particular NEO is not relevant to an institution. Where this is the case, institutions are expected to outline in their PSED report why they are not progressing with particular NEO(s) and:

Their plan for how they will address them in future, or
Summarise the steps they will take to keep relevant local evidence under review.

Meaningful Action Planning

Colleges and universities will adopt some or all of the equality outcomes defined in the ‘Tackling persistent inequalities together’ report. Institutions’ chances of achieving these equality outcomes will largely rely on effective and meaningful action planning. When planning activity, institutions are reminded that equality outcomes should be viewed as a tool that will help further the three needs of the PSED. Chapter 3 of EHRC’s Scotland PSED Technical Guidance is prescriptive in describing the types of activity institutions might consider in order to further each of the three needs.

Reporting Guidance

EHRC have outlined their expectations for PSED reports, emphasising reports should be published in a timely manner and in a way which is easily accessible. EHRC stresses the need for transparency and the impact of institutions’ work to be reflected in the reports.
Institutions are expected to set baselines for each NEO they plan to adopt/have adopted using the data they have available to them. This will allow institutions to measure progress year on year. SFC and EHRC expect a similar amount of detail in the reports as normal equality outcomes.
To ensure that progress against the NEOs is measurable and to be able to see if the institution is having an impact, good data is needed. Using best principles in data collection (such as data harmonisation and data minimisation) can help ensure data subjects have trust in providing information and the institution has confidence in the quality of their data. Alongside the table included below, EHRC’s guide, Evidence and the Public Sector Equality Duty, is a helpful resource.
When working towards achievement of the NEOs, it is important to consider new forms of data and evidence, such as the Equality and Human Rights Monitor: Is Scotland Fairer (2023) report and the Scotland’s Census 2022 results alongside the data already available. It is also important to consider staff and student voice and involve people who share a relevant protected characteristic and any person which appears to represent the interests of those people in action planning.
It is likely institutions will be faced with data gaps. When existing monitoring and reporting systems do not adequately capture the problem, an output of a NEO might be to have effective monitoring and reporting systems in place by a given date. SFC and EHRC aim to fill data gaps identified at the NEO Sectoral Event through conducting thematic reviews. The topics of the current thematic reviews taking place are feelings of safety/sense of belonging and staff representation.
In reporting on progress towards equality outcomes, balanced reporting is as important as clear reporting. An essential element of mainstreaming equality is the capacity of institutions for honest self-reflection and evaluation. It is the responsibility of institutions to be transparent in their engagements and submissions to SFC and EHRC and clear sighted around their areas for development as well as their strengths.
Any queries regarding the reporting requirements for PSED should be directed to colleagues at EHRC for further clarification or guidance.

Supporting Progress

The Tackling Persistent Inequalities Together Report was published in January 2023 and asked institutions to ‘reflect and move towards the NEOs outlined in this report and begin to work towards, where appropriate, their adoption.’ This was in recognition of the limited time between release of the Tackling Persistent Inequalities Together report and the deadline for institutional PSED reports.
The Action Plan (Annex A) which accompanied the Tackling Persistent Inequalities Report (2023) committed to support universities and colleges to, ‘agree a national measurement framework to understand the impact of actions and progress’.
The 2025 reporting cycle will provide further information regarding progress within the sector towards Equality Outcomes and the impact of actions undertaken to support this. SFC and EHRC will review institutions’ commitment to, and progress on, the NEOs through Public Sector Equality Duty reports and will provide the sector with a summary of national progress towards the NEOs in summer 2025. The April 2025 reports will also be used to progress the development of a measurement framework for the NEOs that will be able to outline success measures more accurately for institutions.
SFC and EHRC aim to support institutions in addressing the NEOs where data is not as readily available. The thematic reviews will be a first step to expanding understanding of, and approaches to, tackling issues relating to feelings of safety and sense of belonging for students and staff as well as staff representation. By further exploring these topics, we hope to provide information and recommendations to the sector which institutions can use in developing their action plans and making progress on the NEOs. Findings of these thematic reviews will be shared with institutions when available.
SFC continue to explore the accessibility of data available to institutions to support identifying and developing their approach to the NEOs. We recognise the diversity of institutional approaches to this work and have sought to signpost to available data to inform the measurement of the NEOs.
SFC’s internal data is based on submissions by institutions through HESA in the case of HEIs and SFC’s FES in the case of colleges. It is expected that institutions will use and reflect on their own data throughout this process. SFC will use these data submissions to consider sectoral progress. At this time, it is not possible to share the data back to the sector in dashboard form beyond the reports currently published (see table below). This is due to the risk of identifying individuals – even when rounding and suppression strategies are applied. As such, SFC do not plan to publish an externally facing NEO dashboard at present. This will be kept under regular review.
The data identification tool below is intended to support institutions. The data sources column outlines the data available to institutions in relation to each NEO. This is not a definitive list and institutions are encouraged to consider other relevant sources of data (internal and external) available to further support the development of this work.

Data Identification Tool

Data Identification tTol
Characteristic	Persistent Inequality	National Equality Outcome	Data Sources
Age	The outcomes of students, as evidenced by SFC and HESA data, by age group shows consistent under-achievement for students aged 25 and over in the university sector and for students under 19 in the college sector.	The retention outcomes for university students aged 25 and over will improve. The success rates for college students aged under 19 will improve.	University sector-level data is available to institutions through the Report on Widening Access (ROWA) (Scottish domiciled full-time first-degree entrants or Scottish domiciled undergraduate entrants only)[1]. Universities also have access to their own internal retention data. HESA publish historic data on non-continuation rates after year of entry, two years of entry, resumption of study after year out, and projected outcomes for university students here [2]. This is all broken down by institution. However, HESA have changed how they publish this data as part of HESA’s Open Data portal. A blog post explaining the change here. Summary college performance indicators data by institution is published by SFC in the National/Regional/College PI Tool XLSX. Colleges also have access to more granular College Performance Indicators data via the Course PI Tool. This Excel dashboard is shared with each college directly under a data sharing agreement and is not published.
Disability	The outcomes of students, as evidenced by SFC and HESA data, shows consistent under-achievement for students who declared a mental health condition. The numbers of students disclosing this information is also increasing. Feedback from students to Lead Scotland, input from students into the SG/SAAS Disability Related Student Support Review and input into the Disabled Students Employment Action Plan all outline issues from disabled students in relation to the access and implementation of reasonable adjustments. Scottish hate crime statistics evidence increased harassment to people with a disability. Disabled people are under-represented in College Boards and Courts. The proportion of disabled staff are not always in line with the local travel to work population (outlined in the 2022 Census) and are not in line with the national census.	The success and retention rates of college and university students who declare a mental health condition will improve. Disabled students report feeling satisfied with the overall support and reasonable adjustments received, including from teaching staff, while on their course. Disabled staff and students report feeling safe in the tertiary system. Where representation is not proportionate to the relevant population, increase the representation of disabled staff in the workforce and on college boards and university courts.	Report on Widening Access College data includes students declaring a mental health condition, including where it is University data includes students declaring a mental health condition however this cannot currently be separated where two or more are declared. Background table 6 of the Report on Widening Access shows the successful completion rates for college students by disability type, as well as sex, age group, ethnicity and CE status. Background table 5 shows the number and percent of college entrants on courses 160+ hours in duration by the above protected characteristics. Background Table 3 shows similar university retention rates for the above protected characteristics. HE staff and board membership data is available via HESA and is based on personal characteristics such as disability (Who’s working in HE?: Personal characteristics \| HESA ; Who’s working in HE? \| HESA). Institutions are able to compare this to their own internal student data on disability or use the Report on Widening Access. College board data is available internally and the following report shows whether disabled people are under/overrepresented in the college sector compared to Scottish population (College Staffing Data 2021-22).
Gender Reassignment	There is limited quantitative data about the outcomes for trans staff and students. Research from Stonewall and TransEdu suggests that Trans people face harassment on account of their trans status.	Trans staff and students report feeling safe to be themselves in the tertiary system.	The Report on Widening Access includes data noting whether gender is or is not the same as one assigned at birth. Universities are able to see their institutional data through HESA returns (NB: HESA 2022-23 data for Scottish providers, the Gender Identity field has been replaced by a Transgender field, which asks students, “Do you consider yourself to be trans, or have a trans history?”)[3]. College data is included in institutional returns to SFC . The NEO was formulated from Stonewall research and TransEDU and has not been duplicated year on year.
Race	As outlined in the EHRC Racial Harassment Inquiry. Actions should include the recommendations from EHRC racial harassment inquiry (p15 & 16). Staff data and student data from both sectors and data on representation at Court level outlines under-representation issues.	Staff and students feel supported and safe and are confident that complaints of harassment or bias on the grounds of race will be dealt with appropriately because complaints procedures are fit for purpose and offer effective redress. Institutions should also have regard to attainment levels by racial group and ensure that their curriculum is diverse and anti-racist. Where representation is not proportionate to the relevant population, increase the racial diversity of court members and address any racial diversity issues in college boards. Where representation is not proportionate to the relevant population, increase the racial diversity of teaching and non-teaching staff to align with student representation in the sector.	SFC does not hold data on harassment or complaints, but internal institutional data may be available. Institutions are expected, by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), to publish annual reports on complaints. The SPSO publish the outcome of complaints they have investigated including their recommendations. Attainment data available through the Report on Widening Access, HESA and college’s Course PI Tool and the National/Regional/College PI Tool published on SFC website alongside the College PI report here: College Performance Indicators 2021-22). HE staff and board membership data is available via HESA and is based on personal characteristics such as ethnicity (Who’s working in HE?: Personal characteristics \| HESA ; Who’s working in HE? \| HESA). Institutions are able to compare this to their own internal student data on ethnicity or the Report on Widening Access. College board data is available internally and the following report shows whether minority ethnic background is under/overrepresented in the college sector compared to Scottish population (College Staffing Data 2021-22).
Religion or Belief	There is limited quantitative data addressing the student experience based on religion and belief. We have used research presented by the Jewish Union of Students, and the lived experiences of people of faith in the development of the race equality project.	Students and staff report that they have confidence in institutional report and support mechanisms because they are fit for purpose.	SFC does not hold data on harassment, abuse or complaints, however, institutions may hold this data internally. Institutions are expected, by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), to publish annual reports on complaints. The SPSO publish the outcome of complaints they have investigated including their recommendations. Data on religion/belief is available to institutions through the Report on Widening Access – see background table 16 for university and table 17 for college.
Sex	Evidenced from the Scottish Government’s Equally Safe strategy including issues, predominately from women, relating to accessing support and reporting issues. Statistical data outlines that men in society are three times more likely than women to die by suicide. Men are less likely to access mental health support. Statistical data shows that course choice and sex imbalance on courses remain an issue. However, the specific targets of the past have not had the required impact. Institutions have asked for flexibility to focus on key subjects where they could make an impact.	Staff and students know how to access support about violence, harassment and abuse, report their experience and feel properly supported in doing so because the services are fit for purpose. Institutions can evidence approaches that prevent and respond to violence, harassment and abuse. Men (staff and students) know how to access mental health support (recognising intersectionality within that group). Institutions will have regard to significant imbalances on courses and take action to address it.	SFC does not hold data on harassment, abuse or complaints, however, institutions may hold this data internally. Institutions are expected, by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), to publish annual reports on complaints. The SPSO publish the outcome of complaints they have investigated including their recommendations. SFC does not hold data on students’ access to mental health support. Institutions may hold this data internally. Data on sex imbalances on courses can be viewed through the HESA data for universities and the Course PI Tool for colleges. SFC also reports on sex in the Report on Widening Access, the National/Regional/College PI Tool alongside the College PI report here: College Performance Indicators 2021-22). Institutions have access to their own internal data on sex.
Sexual Orientation	Stonewall Research suggests some LGB students hide their identities in universities and that staff experience barriers that prevent them from being out at work.	Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual staff and students report that they feel safe being ‘out’ at university and college.	Data is available through the Report on Widening Access, in background table 16 and 17 for universities and colleges respectively, to measure numbers of students reporting sexual orientation. Originally the outcome was created using Stonewall and TransEDU research that has not been repeated.

[1] The Report on Widening Access shows sector-level university retention rates for age groups “Under 21” and “21 and over” only.

[2] HESA offer breakdowns for ‘Mature’ and ‘Young’ age groups in these tables, which they define as Mature being those aged 21 and over on entry for UG students and 25 and over on entry for PG students

[3] Full details of the new data item can be found here: HESA – Experts in higher education data and analysis
A shorter summary can be found here: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/innovation/records/reviews/data-futures-2022-23#gender-identity-amended-11-nov-2021