EDI is an Investment, not an Expenditure

Wakey wakey

Higher education (HE) still seems to be stuck on the notion that Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) is something that we’re either legally obligated to do through the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), or that we’re trying to win people round to the fact that it’s just the “right thing to do.” Neither of these cases seem to be driving the agenda forward at any great pace with the key decision makers within the sector – you only have to look at the frantic scurrying of universities following Black Lives Matter to realise that the ivory towers were/are still very much standing. This is not to detract from the amazing work that has been done, particularly over the last 5-7 years around decolonising the curriculum, attainment/awarding gaps, widening participation and sector-wide charter marks such as Athena Swan and the Race Equality Charter. However, I think the sector is missing a trick. While we’re busy trying to prove that the system is “wrong” and that EDI, in its broadest sense, is “right”, the private sector has been busy seeing this work through the lens of cold, hard, cash and I think it’s something that we need not be ashamed to champion more in our EDI work. The private sector embraced EDI for two reasons, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the fact it makes economic sense ie companies that are more diverse do better. Simple.

Investment not Expenditure

While universities like to still view themselves as havens of intellectual rigour where knowledge is in itself the goal, it can’t be ignored that the sector has, for better or worse, become ever more commercialised. When you begin to view a university as a £150+million business, rather than an unquantifiable fountain of knowledge, then we can begin to better frame EDI in a way that our leaders can understand. We should take the private sector framing that EDI activity is an investment rather than expenditure. Some may challenge as to where the money is coming from – I’d argue that HE doesn’t actually suffer from resource scarcity, it suffers from inefficient or inappropriate resource allocation (but that’s a blog for another time.) Now, I will caveat that, personally, I dislike reducing our amazing staff and students to pounds and pence on a balance sheet, but if it helps gets us to where we need to be then let’s play the game to win shall we? There are some very simple examples of this that begin to show the economic value for universities in both staff and students.

Students

1 UK student = 3 x £9,250 = £27,750

Every student that drops out (roughly 1/10 in the UK) represents a loss of income, so anything that is designed to get them to stay is automatically an investment. With each student representing such a large amount of money, it only takes a couple to stay for most programmes to become “profitable”. Take bursaries and grants for example, if they’re viewed as an investment in students, rather than a gift, then you not only fulfil widening participation targets but also make money from doing it as we know students who receive such funds tend to be more likely to complete their course and, in many cases, do better overall. For as little as £1,000 you could make nearly £30,000 – pretty good odds!

Decolonising/diversifying curriculums is another great example. It’s often being framed around student satisfaction or just that it’s (clearly) the right thing to do – but it also makes economic sense. If students see themselves in their curriculum, have assessment types and support mechanisms that are inclusive by design, students are more likely to stay on and more likely to be awarded higher grades, every student that stays on and succeeds is ultimately more money in the bank which is why funding these programmes fully in terms of time, staffing and resource is vital for long-term economic returns.

Staff

The same can be said for staff, who so often play second fiddle to the needs of students. Each staff member who stays is valuable to the institution. Some staff will be bringing in income through research, others will be supporting students to stay and achieve (ie make money), and others will be driving forward change at the university in any number of other quantifiable and unquantifiable ways. An inclusive staff environment builds happy and productive staff – this not only means that a university will be getting more for its money as regards productivity, but reduces the need to recruit new staff which is an expensive business costing, on average, around £3-4,000. Spending on (EDI) programmes/activity ranging from training/development, to staff wellbeing, to staff networks – it should all be framed as an investment. Private sector companies talk about “talent pipelines” and “talent acquisition” because staff are valuable assets – and diverse talent breeds greater rewards at all levels of the organisation than homogenous teams. We also know that more diverse executive teams and boards produce more successful and stable private companies. HE it’s time to take note.

It's about value

So what am I trying to say with all this? EDI needs to be additionally framed in terms of “value”, alongside the knowledge that it’s just the right thing to be doing. Other sectors are pumping millions into this work and they’re not just doing it because it looks good, they’re doing it because it makes business sense. If we want to transform the sector, let’s stop tinkering around the edges on small-scale projects and short-term funding, let’s start seeing EDI work as a long-term investment opportunity essential to institutional competitiveness and sustainability for both students and staff.

Five steps to invest in EDI are:

1. Start accounting for the value of EDI work. What comes back into the system via financial and non-financial means and what is the value of that?
2. Move EDI teams to sit inside a central function ie VC office – break them out of either being staff or students
3. Invest in the EDI function through appropriately paid full-time staff – stop with these six-month roles!
4. Explore secondment opportunities and workload allocations. Secondments build internal pipelines while capitalising on, and developing further, internal expertise. Allocated time for activity such as Staff Networks, working groups etc. within workloads shows that the work is truly valued as essential to the University
5. Fully fund student support services - too many services have seen exponential growth and not the resources to match it, it’s not a pure cost but an investment.

Sebastian is EDI Partner at Kingston University. He has been working within education for the past 10 years across Widening Participation/Outreach, Schools and FE, Students’ Unions and University EDI and has been recognised multiple times for his contributions to diversity and inclusion work. He has a deep passion for people-centred work and a core belief in the notion of #EDIeveryday