We have conducted an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA), following our 2026 annual pay review.
2026 pay review: at a glance
- Average base salary increase: 3.5%.
- Average overall increase including flexible benefits allowance changes: 3.9%.
- No overall difference in average increase between women and men (both 3.5%).
- Higher increases for more junior grades, especially professional support (4%) and associates (3.6%), compared with 3.1% for managers, technical specialists and directors.
- Younger colleagues received the largest increases: ages 18 to 20: 12.1% and 21 to 30: 4.7%.
What is our annual pay review?
Each year, we review how much we pay colleagues at the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Payments Systems Regulator (PSR). The annual pay review takes place in April and is based on employee’s performance in the previous calendar year.
It is designed to provide fair, competitive pay at all levels and reward strong, consistent performance. The annual pay review is part of our employment offer.
Under the public sector equality duty (PSED), we have a duty to consider how our policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act 2010.
Read more on how we comply with the PSED below.
Our 2026 pay review
From 1 April 2026, we gave performance-related pay increases to all eligible employees based on their:
- End-of-year performance rating for 2025.
- Current salary position within the 2026 pay ranges.
Colleagues with the strongest performance, positioned lowest in their pay range, receive the biggest percentage base pay increase. This makes sure their salaries progress at a faster rate, to tackle longstanding concerns about fair pay progression and narrow our pay gaps.
Key elements of our 2026 pay review included:
- Colleagues with strong performance received a salary increase of at least 2.4%, and up to 6% if they significantly outperformed.
- Colleagues who are still developing in role or need to improve received a 1.5% salary increase.
- We increased pay range midpoints by different amounts to make sure we remain aligned with the external market, with increases of up to 3.7% in some cases.
- We applied ‘maintained pay’ at the top of the pay ranges to help make sure colleagues doing similar jobs at the FCA and PSR are paid similarly.
- We increased the flexible benefits allowance for our lowest paid colleagues.
- We applied different pay awards for apprentices, graduates and level 9 associates in the Supervision Hub.
Overall, the average base salary increase across the FCA and PSR was 3.5% following the annual pay review in April 2026.
The 3.5% figure may increase slightly after the following are complete:
- Remaining deferred performance reviews.
- Interim performance reviews.
We’ve also looked at the average increase to employees’ compensation from June 2026, once changes to the flexible benefits allowance are applied.
Including changes to the flexible benefits allowance, the overall 2026 pay review led to an average increase of 3.9%. This results in a slightly higher overall average increase for women (3.9%) compared to men (3.8%).
It also targeted our junior grades, with professional support (4.8%) and associate (4%) colleagues receiving more than managers or technical specialists (3.2%), heads of department (3.6%) and directors (3.2%).
Why we carry out an equality impact assessment
This EIA looks at the impact of the 2026 pay review to check it did not unnecessarily disadvantage or inadvertently discriminate against any group protected by the Equality Act 2010.
We’re not legally required to carry out an EIA currently. However, carrying out this assessment helps us analyse how the pay review impacts our employees.
Groups protected by the Equality Act 2010 likely to be affected
This EIA is based on the impact of the 2026 pay review against the data that we hold on colleagues’ characteristics, including:
- age
- disability
- ethnicity
- religion or belief
- neurodiversity
- sex
- sexual orientation
Where our analysis shows a disparity between the impact of the changes on a particular characteristic as compared with colleagues without that characteristic, we are satisfied that such disparity is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Accordingly, we consider that no characteristic groups have been disproportionately or unfairly affected by the pay review in a positive or negative way.
For example, our younger employees received on average higher salary increases than our older employees. This is a result of factors such as our younger employees typically being positioned lower in their respective pay range and being awarded higher increases through the performance-related pay matrix. In addition, many of our younger colleagues are in the apprentice and graduate programmes and benefited from higher salary increases.
Chart
Data table
There is a 100% declaration rate for age, sex and location. The lowest declaration rate is for neurodiversity (56%).
Average salary increases 2026
Figure 2 below summarises the average base salary increase awarded to our colleagues by characteristic, location and contractual grade.
The salary increase changes were calculated on the change to base pay.
Figure 2 does not take account of the additional pension contribution and flexible benefits accruing from salary uplifts.
The 2026 pay review saw an overall average salary increase of 3.5% across the total eligible population as of 1 April 2026.
The resulting full-time equivalent average salary is £75,555.
Click on the tabs below to view a breakdown for each characteristic.
Age
Chart
Data table
The largest change was a 12.1% increase for those aged 18 to 20. The smallest change was a 2.9% increase for those over 50 years old.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
Disability
Chart
Data table
The largest change was a 3.7% increase for colleagues who have not declared their disability status. The smallest change was a 3.2% increase for those who declared a disability.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
Ethnicity
Chart
Data table
The largest change was a 3.7% increase for those of mixed/multiple ethnicity. The smallest change was a 3.2% increase for those who have not declared their ethnicity status.
The dashed line shows how each characteristic compares to the 3.5% average.
Religion
Chart
Data table
The largest change was a 3.7% increase for colleagues who are atheist. The smallest change was a 3.1% increase for colleagues who have not declared their religion or belief.
The dashed line shows how each characteristic compares to the 3.5% average.
Neurodiversity
Chart
Data table
The largest change was a 3.6% increase for colleagues who are not neurodivergent. The smallest change was a 3.3% increase for those who are neurodivergent.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
Sex
Chart
Data table
Both women and men received a 3.5% increase.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
Sexual orientation
Chart
Data table
The largest salary change was a 4.7% increase for bisexual colleagues. The smallest change was a 3.1% increase for colleagues who have not declared their sexual orientation.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
Location
Chart
Data table
The largest change was a 3.5% increase for colleagues in London. The smallest change was a 3.4% increase for national colleagues.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
Contractual grade
Chart
Data table
The largest change was a 4% increase for those in professional support. The smallest change was a 3.1% increase for managers, technical specialists and directors.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
Contractual hours
Chart
Data table
The largest change was a 3.6% increase for full-time colleagues. The smallest change was a 3% increase for part-time colleagues.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
We provide more analysis against colleagues’ characteristics, location and contractual grade below.
How to read the charts in this section
- To avoid identifying individuals where there are fewer than 6 people in a group, this shows as 0 on the chart and an asterisk (*) in the data tables below.
- The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 3.5% average across all colleagues.
Age
Younger colleagues received higher average base salary increases, with those aged 18 to 20 and 21 to 30 years old receiving average increases of 12.1% and 4.7% respectively.
Many of our younger colleagues are part of the graduate programme and apprenticeship scheme, where salary increases were on average 11.7% and 12.2% respectively.
Colleagues in the younger age brackets typically tend to be positioned lower in their respective pay ranges. The performance-related pay matrix means these colleagues will benefit from greater pay increases. Of colleagues aged 18 to 20, 50% were in the bottom third of their respective pay range before any performance-related pay increase was applied. For those aged 21 to 30, this was 83.4%.
Colleagues in age groups from 41 to 50 and over 50 received the lowest average salary increase, at 3.2% and 2.9% respectively. This is largely driven by older colleagues being paid higher in their respective pay ranges. Those paid higher in their pay range are likely to benefit less from a performance-related pay increase. Colleagues paid at or above the pay range maximum were also subject to maintained pay in 2026, limiting any salary increases.
Of colleagues with a base salary over the pay range maximum before any performance-related pay increase was applied, 64% were aged over 50 and 25.7% between 41 and 50.
Of the colleagues positioned in the upper third, 49.2% were over 50 and 32.1% between 41 and 50.
Chart
Data table
Across most grades, younger colleagues received higher average salary increases than older colleagues.
Figure 4 shows the breakdown of the associate population into the 4 grade levels and by age bracket. It excludes degree-level apprentices and graduates.
Associates aged 21 to 30 received slightly higher average salary increases than associates in the older age brackets. Lead associate colleagues, aged from 21 to 30, saw the largest average salary increase of 4%.
Typically, younger colleagues are positioned lower in their pay range and so receive the biggest percentage increase to their base pay, subject to their end-of-year performance rating.
Associate – level 9 colleagues have a lower average salary increase (2.9%) due to 20% of this population working in the Supervision Hub. These colleagues receive separate percentage based pay increases linked to their progress through the supervision learning pathway outside of the annual pay review process.
Chart
Data table
Younger associates generally received slightly higher average salary increases than older associates.
Disability
Disabled colleagues received an average base salary increase of 3.2%, compared to non-disabled colleagues who received an average salary increase of 3.5%.
Figure 5 shows the average base salary increase by disability status and contractual grade.
Chart
Data table
Colleagues who declared a disability received slightly lower average increases than colleagues who did not declare a disability.
Before the performance-related pay matrix was applied, the positioning of disabled and non-disabled colleagues across the pay ranges was similar at 39% and 40% respectively. After the performance-related pay matrix was applied, colleagues without a disability received slightly higher increases on average than colleagues with a disability.
Figure 6 shows the breakdown of the associate population into the 4 grade levels and by disability status. It excludes degree-level apprentices and graduates.
Chart
Data table
The average salary increases were broadly similar across disability groups within each associate grade level, with only small differences between colleagues who declared a disability and those who did not.
Ethnicity
The average base salary increase was 3.7% for our mixed/multiple ethnic colleagues and 3.6% for Asian colleagues.
Figure 7 below shows a breakdown of the average base salary increase by ethnicity and contractual grade.
| Category (%) | Professional support | Associate | Technical specialist | Manager | Head of department | Director |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asian | 5.2 | 3.6 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 4.3 | 3.2 |
| Black | 4.6 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 3.1 | * | * |
| Mixed/ multiple | 4.0 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 3.3 | * | * |
| Other | 4.0 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 2.9 | * | * |
| White | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
| Prefer not to say | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | * | * |
| Undeclared | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 3.0 | * | * |
| Total | 4.0 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.5 | 3.1 |
A higher proportion of colleagues who are Asian (62.7%), black (61.3%) or of mixed/multiple ethnicities (63.0%) are under 40 years old, compared to white (43.2%) colleagues.
| Category (%) | Level 9 associate | Level 8 associate | Senior associate | Lead associate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asian | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.3 |
| Black | 2.3 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Mixed/ multiple | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 3.6 |
| Other | * | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.8 |
| White | 3.1 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.3 |
| Prefer not to say | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.1 |
| Undeclared | 2.6 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.4 |
| Total | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.4 |
Religion or belief
When comparing average salary increases across colleagues’ religion or beliefs, there are minor differences.
Atheist colleagues received the highest average increase (3.7%), followed by Hindu, Muslim and Jewish colleagues (3.6%). Christian, Buddhist and other religions received an average increase of 3.3%, while Sikh colleagues received 3.2%.
Figure 9 below shows a breakdown of the average base salary increase by religion or belief and contractual grade.
| Category (%) | Professional support | Associate | Technical specialist | Manager | Head of department | Director |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atheist | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 2.9 |
| Buddhist | * | 3.3 | 3.2 | * | * | * |
| Christian | 4.0 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.7 | 3.3 |
| Hindu | 3.3 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 3.1 | * | * |
| Jewish | * | 4.0 | * | 3.0 | * | * |
| Muslim | 5.6 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 2.8 | * | * |
| Sikh | * | 3.3 | 3.4 | 2.9 | * | * |
| Other | 4.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.5 | * | * |
| Prefer not to say | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.6 |
| Undeclared | 2.6 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.6 | * |
| Total | 4.0 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.5 | 3.1 |
A greater proportion of Muslim (29.2%), Jewish (24.4%) and Atheist (20.9%) colleagues are aged 30 or below compared to colleagues who hold a different religion or belief.
Neurodiversity
Since July 2025 we started to capture if colleagues identify as neurodivergent or not.
So far, 56% of colleagues have disclosed their status, with 479 colleagues self-identifying as being neurodivergent (9.3%).
Neurodivergent colleagues received an average base salary increase of 3.3%, compared to non-neurodivergent colleagues who received an average salary increase of 3.6%.
Figure 10 shows the average base salary increase by neurodiversity and contractual grade.
Chart
Data table
Across all grades, colleagues who identified as neurodivergent received slightly lower average increases than colleagues who did not identify as neurodivergent.
Figure 11 shows the breakdown of the associate population into the 4 grade levels and by neurodiversity status. It excludes degree-level apprentices and graduates.
Chart
Data table
Across the associate grades, colleagues who identified as neurodivergent received slightly lower average increases than colleagues who did not identify as neurodivergent.
While non‑neurodivergent colleagues received marginally higher average increases at most grades, the differences are small and likely to be influenced by the large number of undeclared colleagues.
Sex
The overall average salary increase was 3.5% for both men and women.
The average salary increase by sex and contractual grade is shown in Figure 12 below.
There is little difference in the average salary increase between men and women at each contractual grade apart from at the professional support and director levels.
Men in professional support received an average increase of 8.2%, compared to women who received on average a 3.6% increase. This is largely driven by the much higher proportion of male apprentices within this grade and the higher pay increases awarded to the apprentice population. Around half of men (53.8%) in this grade are in the apprentice scheme, compared to 6.4% of women.
If the apprentice population is removed from the analysis, the average increase in professional support is 3% for women and 2.9% for men.
Chart
Data table
Average salary increases were similar for women and men in most grades. The main exception is the professional support grade, where men received a higher average increase than women.
Figure 13 shows the breakdown of the associate population into 4 grade levels. It excludes degree-level apprentices and graduates. There is little difference in the average base salary increases awarded.
Chart
Data table
Average salary increases were very similar for women and men at each associate grade level, with differences of only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points.
Sexual orientation
Bisexual colleagues received the highest average salary increase (4.7%), followed by those who selected prefer not to say (3.9%), gay/lesbian colleagues (3.6%), other (3.5%) and heterosexual colleagues (3.4%).
Over half of bisexual colleagues (52%) are aged 30 or below. This compares with 17.7% gay/lesbian colleagues and 16.8% of heterosexual colleagues. Around half (50.1%) of heterosexual/straight colleagues and gay/lesbian colleagues (47.9%) are over 41 years old.
Location
Overall, London-based colleagues received an average salary increase of 3.5%, compared to 3.4% for colleagues based in Edinburgh and Leeds.
Figure 14 confirms that within contractual grades, London-based colleagues have seen higher average salary increases at the professional support, associate and head of department grade levels.
Chart
Data table
Differences between locations are generally small. London-based colleagues received slightly higher average increases in the professional support, associate and head of department grade.
A factor driving the difference in the average salary increase is that London has many more professional support and associate colleagues.
Figure 15 shows the proportion of colleagues in each contractual grade by location. It highlights that most professional support colleagues (93.5%) and associate colleagues (87.9%) are based in London. Colleagues in more junior roles typically received higher average salary increases.
In addition, a greater proportion of London colleagues (50.4%) compared to nationally based colleagues (38.9%) were positioned in the lower third of their new pay range before the performance-related pay matrix was applied.
Chart
Data table
Most colleagues across all grades are based in London.
Contracted hours
In 2026, we included analysis by contracted hours for the first time. This is based on the agreed working arrangements as at April 2026.
Colleagues working part time received an average salary increase of 3% (assessed on their full-time equivalent salary), compared to 3.6% for full-time colleagues.
This difference is likely because full-time colleagues tend to be lower in their respective pay range compared to part-time colleagues. Based on full-time equivalent salaries, full-time colleagues are 14 percentage points lower in their respective pay range than part-time colleagues.
The performance-related pay matrix awards greater salary increases to those lower in the pay range.
Additional protected characteristics
Our view is that the salary changes applied in April 2026 do not affect colleagues based on gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, or pregnancy and maternity in a positive or negative way that is disproportionate or unfair.
Compliance with the public sector equality duty
To comply with the public sector equality duty, we must, in the exercise of our functions, have ‘due regard’ to the need to meet 3 equality objectives under the Equality Act 2010, namely to:
- Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act.
- Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a ‘relevant protected characteristic’ and those who do not.
- Foster good relations between people who share a ‘relevant protected characteristic’ and those who do not.
One of the objectives of the pay review changes is to narrow the pay gaps and increase equality of opportunity between colleagues who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.
Overall, our view is that the changes implemented as part of the 2026 pay review do not affect colleagues with protected characteristics in a positive or negative way that is disproportionate or unfair.
How to read this data
Data set
The data set is based on a population of 5,179 colleagues who were eligible for the annual performance and pay review. Calculations are based on full time equivalent (FTE) values.
The analysis is based on the impact of the changes against the data that we hold for colleagues’ characteristics (age, disability, ethnicity, religion or belief, neurodivergent, sex and sexual orientation). As seen in Figure 1, we do not have full characteristic disclosure for all colleagues.
The data set is based on legal sex (as recorded on a colleague’s birth certificate or gender recognition certificate) as required by HMRC for payroll purposes. This is a binary field (male or female) and is used for the sex characteristic.
The salaries considered are as of 1 April 2026. No 2026 interim review salary uplifts are included in this analysis.
Where there are fewer than 6 people, this will show as 0 on the chart and an asterisk (*) in the data table, to avoid identifying individuals.
Exclusions
Colleagues with a deferred performance review or those not eligible for the annual pay review, such as colleagues who joined after 1 January 2026, have been excluded from this analysis.
Contingent workers are also excluded from the analysis.
The analysis excludes manager allowance from the comparisons on base pay. This is because the manager allowance is a legacy entitlement and is paid to a small number of employees as a separate allowance via flexible benefits.
Definitions
Where ‘average’ is referenced in the analysis, this is the mean value.
Executive directors and the chief executive are included within the director contractual grade category.
Annex A: At Our Best Awards scheme
At Our Best Awards for 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026
Overall, 81.6% of colleagues received an ‘At our Best’ award in 2025/26.
At Our Best Awards give us the chance to recognise colleagues who live our values in a way that has a significant and lasting impact on our business.
Colleagues are eligible for single awards of up to £1,000, with a maximum of £2,000 in any performance year.
Any colleague can suggest someone for an award to their local management team.
In the financial year 2025/26, the budget for awards was set at £1.25m.
Who received an award in 2025/26
Figure 16 shows the percentage of colleagues who received one or more awards from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, against various characteristics, location and contractual grade.
It is based on colleagues included in the EIA data set.
By age bracket, 62.5% of colleagues aged 18 to 20 received an award, compared to around 80% of colleagues in the other age brackets.
A key factor contributing to this is that most 18 to 20-year-olds are on the apprenticeship programme and joined in October 2025, part way through the year.
In terms of other characteristics, although there are some minor differences between the percentage of colleagues who did and did not receive an award, our view is the award scheme does not affect colleagues based on protected characteristics in a positive or negative way that is disproportionate or unfair.
Click on the tabs below to view a breakdown for each characteristic.
Age
Chart
Data table
The highest percentage of colleagues receiving an award were 21 to 30-year-olds (84%) and the smallest percentage were 18 to 20-year-olds (62.5%).
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Disability
Chart
Data table
The highest percentage of colleagues receiving an award were colleagues who preferred not to say (83.8%) and the lowest percentage were those who had a disability or had not declared their disability status (78.7%).
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Ethnicity
Chart
Data table
The highest percentage of colleagues receiving an award were those who preferred not to say (84.9%), and the lowest percentage was among Black colleagues (78.8%).
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Religion
Chart
Data table
The highest percentage of colleagues receiving an award were those who preferred not to say (84.2%) and the lowest percentage were those who declared 'Other' as their religion or belief (75%).
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Neurodiversity
Chart
Data table
The highest percentage of colleagues receiving an award were colleagues who preferred not to say (85.8%) and the lowest percentage were those who had not declared their neurodiversity status (79.2%).
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Sex
Chart
Data table
81.9% of women received an award and 81.3% of men.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Sexual orientation
Chart
Data table
The highest percentage of colleagues receiving an award were colleagues who listed their sexual orientation as 'other' (90.3%) and the lowest percentage were colleagues who had not declared their sexual orientation (80.6%).
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Location
Chart
Data table
81.4% of colleagues in London received an award, compared to 83.4% colleagues nationally.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Contractual grade
Chart
Data table
The highest percentage of colleagues receiving an award were those in associate roles (84%) and the lowest percentage was the head of department contractual grade (42.2%).
When looking at awards received by contractual grade, this is based on the grade level colleagues were in on 31 March 2026.
For example, if a colleague received an award when they were a manager but were later promoted to head of department during 2025/26, the award is captured under the head of department contractual grade.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Contractual hours
Chart
Data table
82.3% of full-time colleagues received an award, compared to 75.9% of part-time colleagues.
The dashed line shows how each group compares to the 81.6% average across all colleagues.
Annex B: Outcomes from performance reviews 2025/26
The tables below provide a breakdown of the performance review outcomes by employee characteristic at the interim and end-of-year based on employee records as of April 2026.
Due to rounding, the totals in the tables below might not equal 100%.
End of year reviews
Protected characteristic
Click on the tabs below to view a breakdown of end-of-year performance review outcomes for each protected characteristic.
Sex
Chart
Data table
Ethnicity
Chart
Data table
Disability
Chart
Data table
Neurodiversity
Chart
Data table
Age
Chart
Data table
Sexual orientation
Chart
Data table
Contractual hours
Chart
Data table
Service length
Chart
Data table
Contractual grade
Chart
Data table
Number of colleagues
Changes to performance ratings following a request for a review 2025/2026
17 performance rating outcomes changed following a review.
We do not record how many colleagues requested to review their end-of-year performance rating.
All the changes resulted in a single step increase in the value of the colleague’s performance rating.
Interim reviews
Protected characteristic
Click on the tabs below to view a breakdown of interim performance review outcomes for each protected characteristic.
Sex
Chart
Data table
Ethnicity
Chart
Data table
Disability
Chart
Data table
Neurodiversity
Chart
Data table
Sexual orientation
Chart
Data table
Age
Chart
Data table
Contractual hours
Chart
Data table
Service length
Chart
Data table
Contractual grade
Chart
Data table
Number of colleagues at interim review 2025/26
Average salary increase by religion and contractual grade 2026
At interim reviews in 2025/26, there were 5,156 colleagues in total.
Enter a characteristic in the search bar to see a breakdown by number of colleagues.
| Characteristic | Group | Number of colleagues |
|---|---|---|
| All | Total colleagues | 5,156 |
| Sex | Men | 2,503 |
| Sex | Women | 2,653 |
| Ethnicity | Minority ethnic | 1,746 |
| Ethnicity | White | 3,025 |
| Ethnicity | Prefer not to say | 237 |
| Ethnicity | Undeclared | 148 |
| Neurodiversity | Neurodivergent | 417 |
| Neurodiversity | Non-neurodivergent | 1,724 |
| Neurodiversity | Prefer not to say | 340 |
| Neurodiversity | Undeclared | 2,675 |
| Disability | Disabled | 469 |
| Disability | Non-disabled | 3,314 |
| Disability | Prefer not to say | 251 |
| Disability | Undeclared | 1,122 |
| Sexual orientation | Heterosexual | 4,048 |
| Sexual orientation | LGBT | 305 |
| Sexual orientation | Prefer not to say | 519 |
| Sexual orientation | Undeclared | 284 |
| Age | 18 to 24 | 272 |
| Age | 25 to 34 | 1,368 |
| Age | 35 to 44 | 1,629 |
| Age | 45 to 54 | 1,239 |
| Age | 55+ | 648 |
| Contractual hours | Full-time | 4,613 |
| Contractual hours | Part-time | 543 |
| Service length | Less than 1 years' service | 554 |
| Service length | Greater than 1 year's service | 4,602 |
| Contractual grade | Professional support | 279 |
| Contractual grade | Associate | 3,817 |
| Contractual grade | Technical specialist | 373 |
| Contractual grade | Manager | 543 |
| Contractual grade | Head of department | 113 |
| Contractual grade | Director | 31 |