Diversity of RIBA Governance: data report for 2023

Executive summary

This is the first report presenting the RIBA Governance data for all protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, along with measures for social mobility and caring responsibilities. We plan to survey RIBA 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 RIBA Governance, we hope to build confidence and trust in both RIBA staff and members. If our senior leadership is willing to share their EDI data to assist in developing a more inclusive RIBA, then we believe staff and members will be more likely to do the same. Together, we can co-create a diverse, inclusive, and dynamic RIBA.

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 RIBA Governance is completed with a good average response rate across all governance bodies with 71% of all RIBA 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 (Office for National Statistics).
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 RIBA 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 current market practice standard. In addition, we have consulted the Stonewall guidance for questions on gender and sexual orientation, the Scope guidance for questions on disability and the Social Mobility Commission 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 RIBA 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 RIBA 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 RIBA 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 RIBA’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 RIBA governance, ONS, ARB data and other comparators where appropriate.

For this summary, we have aggregated the data from the RIBA Board, Council and key Committees respectively to ensure that data remains confidential and non-identifiable.

Gender

In terms of binary gender representation across RIBA governance, women are significantly underrepresented, comprising only 32% of RIBA governance bodies compared to the general population (51%, ONS, 2021). When using the profession as a comparison, RIBA’s binary gender representation is very close to that of the ARB. Women account for 31% of registered architects compared to the 32% of RIBA 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 RIBA Governance compared to the general population (13.3 % and 12.6% respectively, ONS 2021). Indeed, more than 85% of RIBA 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 ARB data, 37% of registered architects are older than 31 years.

Disability

RIBA governance has an underrepresentation of disabled members with 15% having a disability compared to the general population (24%, ONS). 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 RIBA governance (2%) compared to the professional population (1.3%, ARB). However, when compared the general population (4%, ONS), Black/African/Caribbean/Black British members are underrepresented in RIBA governance. Similarly, Asian/British Asian individuals constitute 9% of RIBA governance compared to 7.2.% of registered architects (ARB) and 9.3% of the general population (ONS). People of Mixed/Multiple Ethnic Backgrounds comprise 7% of RIBA governance, compared to 2% of registered architects (ARB) and 2.9% of the general population (ONS). And individuals from ‘Other’ backgrounds are better represented in RIBA governance (4%) compared to both the general population (1.6%, ONS) and registered architects (1.2%, ARB).

Religion

RIBA governance data suggests that those across all faiths (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish) are underrepresented compared to ONS data. Direct comparisons with ARB data are difficult as they used a simplified category to capture non-religiosity. However, Christian representation in RIBA governance (39%) is higher than in the ARB data (33.9%).

Sexual orientation

Compared to ARB data (2.5%), members identifying as gay/lesbian are more represented in RIBA governance (5%). Taking together all members identifying as LGBTQ+, RIBA governance is better represented compared to the general population (3.2%, ONS).

Social mobility

Individuals from a professional background (65%) are over-represented when compared to the working population in the general population (37%, Social Mobility Commission). Those from intermediate backgrounds (18%) and lower socio-economic backgrounds (15%) are both underrepresented on RIBA 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 (Social Mobility Commission, 2023). Due to high ‘prefer not to say’ rates in the ARB data and the different monitoring question used, comparisons for social mobility are not possible.

Caring responsibilities

Compared to the working population generally (Business in Community; Ipsos), the proportion of those with caring responsibilities for either a child or adult, or both, in the RIBA Governance is roughly the same, with 44% of working adults having caring responsibilities compared to 45% of RIBA governance. No comparisons can be made with the ARB as they do not collect caring responsibility data.

Diversity data report on RIBA Governance

All responses from the RIBA Board, Council and key Committees.

Gender breakdown

Survey question: How would you describe your gender? (Source: Stonewall 2019)

For the reporting period above, this table shows the breakdown of genders represented by RIBA Governance.

Female	32%
Male	68%
Non-binary	0%

Response rates

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	46%
RIBA Committees	67%
RIBA governance (all responses)	72%

Gender confirmation

Survey question: Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth? (Source: Stonewall 2019)

This table shows the breakdown of gender confirmation.

Yes	100%
No	0%

Response rates

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	46%
RIBA Committees	62%
RIBA governance (all responses)	70%

Age

Survey question: Which age category are you in? (Source: ONS 2021)

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

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	46%
RIBA Committees	67%
RIBA governance (all responses)	72%

Disability

Survey question: Are you disabled, have an impairment, condition, or access need? (Source: Scope 2019)

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

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	41%
RIBA Committees	67%
RIBA governance (all responses)	52%

Race/ethnicity

Survey question: How would you describe your race and/or ethnicity or ethnic background? (Source: ONS 2021)

This table shows the breakdown by race/ethnicity/ethnic background representing RIBA governance.

Asian/Asian British	9%
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British	2%
Mixed/multiple ethnic background	7%
Other background	4%
White	78%

Response rates

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	46%
RIBA Committees	67%
RIBA governance (all responses)	72%

Religion/belief

Survey question: What is your religion or belief? (Source: ONS 2021)

This table shows the breakdown by religion/belief for RIBA governance.

Agnostic	20%
Atheist	15%
Christian	39%
Hindu	0%
Jewish	0%
Muslim	2%
No belief or religion	14%

Response rates

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	39%
RIBA Committees	68%
RIBA governance (all responses)	52%

Sexual orientation

Survey question: How would you describe your sexual orientation? (Source: Stonewall 2019)

This table shows the breakdown of sexual orientation within RIBA governance.

Asexual	5%
Bisexual	0%
Gay/Lesbian	5%
Heterosexual/Straight	90%

Response rates

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	46%
RIBA Committees	62%
RIBA governance (all responses)	69%

Social mobility

Survey question: What was the occupation of your main household earner when you were aged about 14? (Source: Social Mobility Commission 2023)

This table shows the breakdown of social mobility within RIBA 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

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	41%
RIBA Committees	68%
RIBA governance (all responses)	52%

Caring responsibilities

Survey question: Do you have any caring responsibilities for a child/children and/or another adult/s? (Source: ONS 2021)

This table shows whether RIBA governance members have caring responsibilities.

Yes	45%
No	55%

Response rates

RIBA Board	100%
RIBA Council	41%
RIBA Committees	68%
RIBA governance (all responses)	52%

Three key characteristics as per RIBA 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 ONS binary gender representation (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%, ONS) and the profession (1.3%, ARB). 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 RIBA governance (2%) is half of that of the general UK population (4%, ONS).

At Committee level, no members identifying as Asian/Asian British are represented, while Board-level representation (9%) is better than that of ARB data (7.2%) and slightly lower than ONS data (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 RIBA governance (9%) is approaching representation in the general population (9.3%, ONS). Members identifying with the ‘Other Ethnic Background’ category comprise 8% of Board members and 10% of Committee members compared to ARB data (1%) and ONS data (2.1%). Finally, members identifying as White comprise 88% of Council and taking all governance bodies together, comprise 76% of RIBA governance, compared to ARB data (88%) and the general population (81.7%, ONS).

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