Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LEA/LEP Slide Pack March 2016
Employer Skills Survey
2015
Contents
Employers’ experiences of skill shortages
The internal skills challenge
Under-utilisation of skills
Training and Workforce Development
Retention difficulties
Background
8
14
23
28
12
3
Chapter 1:
Background and Introduction
3
ESS 2015 – overview
• ESS 2015 is the third time the survey has been run
at UK-level
• The 2015 survey covers establishments with 2 or
more people working at them
• The 2011 survey included establishments with one
employee – these were not covered in 2013 or 2015.
• Where comparisons are made with 2011 or 2013
findings, these are based on re-weighted 2011 data
(configured to represent the 2+ employment
business population used in 2013 and 2015).
75,129 telephone
interviews with
establishments in
England
LEA / LEP - overview
Owing to the scale of ESS 2015, it is possible to explore variation by locations using both the
LEA and LEP groupings.
The data in this slide pack provides an overview as to the sorts of analysis that can be conducted by
LEA and LEP.
The slide pack largely focuses on the LEAs and LEPs exhibiting very high and very low proportions
for key measures. This is not with the intention to form judgements on different areas on England,
but rather highlight where the pockets of skills and employment challenges are seen.
It is clear there are wide variations by locality, even within the same broad region of England.
Accompanying LEA and LEP Excel tables show the full detail of the analysis.
Achieved interviews / confidence intervals
‘For a question asked of all respondents where the survey result is 50%, we are 95% confident that
the true figure lies within the range 49.64% to 50.36%’
Population
Number of
interviews
(Maximum)
Sampling Error
England 1,488,201 75,129 +/-0.36
LEA (High and Low)
Essex 40,475 2,013 +/-2.18
Hampshire 39,075 1,773 +/-2.33
Kent 40,472 1,722 +/-2.36
Hertfordshire 34,539 1,717 +/-2.37
Lancashire 31,057 1,540 +/-2.50
Halton 2,670 124 +/-8.80
Knowsley 2,237 118 +/-9.02
Slough 3,376 117 +/-9.06
Bracknell Forest 2,832 95 +/-10.05
Rutland 1,239 73 +/-11.47
Population Number of
interviews
(Maximum)
Sampling Error
England 1,488,201 75,129 +/-0.36
LEP (High and Low)
London 260,280 10,629 +/-0.95
South East 109,586 4,932 +/-1.40
North East 42,604 4,289 +/-1.50
Leeds City Region 73,792 4,049 +/-1.54
Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham
and Nottinghamshire 51,646 3,127 +/-1.75
Oxfordshire LEP 21,352 975 +/-3.14
Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly 18,654 963 +/-3.16
Worcestershire 17,070 956 +/-3.17
Cumbria 18,347 914 +/-3.24
Buckinghamshire Thames Valley 17,993 654 +/-3.83
Key definitions
Skills gaps Skill-shortage vacancies
Inc
ide
nc
e
De
ns
ity
Under-utilisation Vacancies
Proportion of establishments
with at least one employee
deemed by their employer to
be not fully proficient in their
role
The number of staff reported
as not fully proficient as a
proportion of all employment
Proportion of establishments
with at least one employee
with skills and qualifications
more advanced than required
for their current job role
The proportion of all staff with
skills and qualifications more
advanced than required for
their current job role
Proportion of establishments
reporting at least one vacancy
Vacancies as a proportion
of all employment
Proportion of establishments
reporting at least one skill-
shortage vacancy
Skill-shortage vacancies as a
proportion of all vacancies
Establishment base
Employment base
Proportions are based on the number of establishments, defined here as a single location of an
organisation, where at least two people work.
Proportions are based on the total number of employees and working proprietors across
establishments.
Chapter 2:
Employers’ experiences of skill shortages
8
Incidence and density of skill-shortage vacancies by LEA
Base: All establishments (as shown)
22.6%
50.1% 48.0% 45.3% 42.9% 42.3%
8.2% 6.8% 6.2% 5.4% 5.3%
Density of skill-shortage vacancies
(118) (630) (95) (176) (75,129) (210)
High LEAs Low LEAs
(221) (73) (303) (117) (316)
3% 2% 5% 3% 6% 1% 18% 15% 8% 9% 5%
SSV Incidence
En
gla
nd
Ru
tla
nd
Bri
gh
ton
an
d
Ho
ve
Kn
ow
sle
y
Wo
lve
rham
pto
n
Ma
nc
he
ste
r
Slo
ug
h
Bra
ck
ne
ll F
ore
st
Bla
ck
bu
rn w
ith
Da
rwe
n
Bu
ry
Be
dfo
rd
Incidence and density of skill-shortage vacancies by LEP
Base: All establishments (as shown)
22.6%
37.4%
30.4% 29.6% 29.1% 28.9%
18.2% 17.9% 15.9% 14.4% 14.0%
Density of skill-shortage vacancies
(2,449) (1,492) (956) (3,015) (75,129) (1,560)
High LEPs Low LEPs
(1,381) (2,224) (1,016) (1,353) (2,777)
7% 5% 6% 4% 6% 4% 7% 9% 5% 5% 5%
SSV Incidence
En
gla
nd
En
terp
ris
e M
3
Sw
ind
on
an
d
Wil
tsh
ire
Gre
ate
r
Bir
min
gh
am
an
d S
oli
hu
ll
He
art
of
the
So
uth
We
st
Liv
erp
oo
l C
ity
Re
gio
n
Te
es
Va
lle
y
Wo
rce
ste
rsh
ire
Gre
ate
r
Ma
nc
he
ste
r
We
st
of
En
gla
nd
Bla
ck
Co
un
ty
Impact of skill-shortage vacancies (LEP)
Base : All establishments with hard-to-fill vacancies that are all as a result of skill shortages (5,495)
84%
49%
43%
43%
40%
35%
35%
30%
24%
23%
94%
Increase workload for other staff
Have difficulties meeting customer services objectives
Lose business or orders to competitors
Experience increased operating costs
Delay developing new products or services
Have difficulties meeting quality standards
Have difficulties introducing new working practices
Outsource work
Withdraw from offering certain products or services altogether
Have difficulties introducing technological change
Any impact
40% Sheffield City Region
59% Tees Valley
50% Coventry and Warwickshire
55% Sheffield City Region
93% Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
52% Coventry and Warwickshire
50% Thames Valley Berkshire
44% Sheffield City Region
37% Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire
Indicates where an impact is most prevalent
in a single LEP
Chapter 3:
Retention Difficulties
12
Base: All establishments in Module 2 (as shown)
LEAs / LEPs with high and low incidence of retention
10%
8%
High LEPs (≥10%)
Low LEPs (≤6%)
Coventry and Warwickshire
Coast to Capital
Worcestershire
Leicester and Leicestershire
The Marches
Oxfordshire LEP
South East Midlands
Thames Valley Berkshire
Black Country
London
Heart of the South West
Northamptonshire
Buckinghamshire Thames Valley
Cumbria
Hertfordshire
Lancashire
Humber
Greater Manchester
Cheshire and Warrington
West of England
Bury
Luton
Warrington
Stoke-on-Trent
North Somerset
Cheshire East
Newham
Oldham
Isle of Wight
Medway
Sefton
Gateshead
Rochdale
Wigan
Barking and Dagenham
Croydon
Rutland
Lewisham
Sutton
Hillingdon
Doncaster
High LEAs (≥15%)
Low LEAs (≤4%)
Chapter 3:
The internal Skills Challenge
14
Density of skills gaps by LEA
Base: All establishments (as shown)
5.1%
10.9%
9.3% 8.9% 8.6% 8.4%
2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2%
Skills gaps density
(252) (117) (914) (193) (256) (228) (95) (346) (1,717) (75,129) (510)
High LEAs Low LEAs
En
gla
nd
Co
ve
ntr
y
Re
dc
ar
an
d
Cle
ve
lan
d
Wa
lth
am
Fo
res
t
Cu
mb
ria
Ha
ve
rin
g
Slo
ug
h
Be
xle
y
Bra
ck
ne
ll F
ore
st
Cit
y o
f L
on
do
n
He
rtfo
rdsh
ire
Density of skills gaps by LEP
Base: All establishments (as shown)
5.1%
10.9%
8.4%
6.4% 6.3% 6.1%
3.8% 3.8% 3.5% 3.5% 3.2%
Skills gaps density
High LEPs Low LEPs
En
gla
nd
Cu
mb
ria
Co
ve
ntr
y a
nd
Wa
rwic
ks
hir
e
Do
rset
No
rth
am
pto
ns
hir
e
Gt
Ca
mb
rid
ge
&
Gt
Pe
terb
oro
ug
h
Th
am
es
Va
lle
y
Be
rks
hir
e
Liv
erp
oo
l
Cit
y R
eg
ion
Ne
w A
ng
lia
We
st
of
En
gla
nd
He
rtfo
rdsh
ire
(1,287) (1,019) (1,163) (1,186) (2,153) (1,492) (2,364) (914) (1,717) (75,129) (1,560)
Main causes of skills gaps (LEA)
59%
56%
34%
29%
29%
26%
25%
20%
19%
18%
72%
20%
Staff are new to the role
Their training is currently only partially completed
Staff lack motivation
They have had training but their performance has not improvedsufficiently
The introduction of new working practices
Staff have not received the appropriate training
Unable to recruit staff with the required skills
The introduction of new technology
The development of new products and services
Problems retaining staff
New to the role/ training not complete (transient)
Transient skill gaps only
Base : All establishments with skills gaps - up to 2 occupations followed up (15,409)
Figures are shown as a percentage of all gaps (not a percentage of all establishments)
68% Hertfordshire
47% Southend on Sea
62% Bedford
64% Lewisham
66% Slough
56% Hillingdon
55% Blackburn with Darwen
88% Slough
Indicates where an impact is most prevalent
in a single LEA
93% Rochdale
56% Coventry
Main causes of skills gaps (LEP)
Base : All establishments with skills gaps - up to 2 occupations followed up (15,409)
Figures are shown as a percentage of all gaps (not a percentage of all establishments)
Indicates where an impact is most prevalent
in a single LEP
59%
56%
34%
29%
29%
26%
25%
20%
19%
18%
72%
20%
Staff are new to the role
Their training is currently only partially completed
Staff lack motivation
They have had training but their performance has not improvedsufficiently
The introduction of new working practices
Staff have not received the appropriate training
Unable to recruit staff with the required skills
The introduction of new technology
The development of new products and services
Problems retaining staff
New to the role/ training not complete (transient)
Transient skill gaps only
68% Hertfordshire
28% Coast to Capital
42% Coast to Capital
35% Cumbria
44% Thames Valley Berkshire
47% Coventry and Warwickshire
26% London
76% Cheshire and Warrington
76% Gloucestershire
43% York and North Yorkshire
Impact of skills gaps (LEA)
52%
26%
25%
24%
21%
17%
11%
40%
Increased workload for other staff
Have higher operating costs
Have difficulties meeting qualitystandards
Have difficulties introducing new workingpractices
Lose business or order to competitors
Delay developing new products orservices
Outsource work
No impact
80% Haringey
49% Redbridge
60% Haringey
49% Redbridge
70% Bournemouth
Base: All establishments with skills gaps (15,409)
Indicates where an impact is most prevalent
in a single LEA
54% Haringey
51% Redbridge
52%
26%
25%
24%
21%
17%
11%
40%
Increased workload for other staff
Have higher operating costs
Have difficulties meeting qualitystandards
Have difficulties introducing new workingpractices
Lose business or order to competitors
Delay developing new products orservices
Outsource work
No impact
Impact of skills gaps (LEP)
20% New Anglia
33% Coventry and Warwickshire
47% London
53% Greater Manchester
62% Thames Valley Berkshire
Base: All establishments with skills gaps (15,409)
Indicates where an impact is most prevalent
in a single LEP
33% Thames Valley Berkshire
23% London
15% Thames Valley Berkshire
Base: All establishments with skills gaps (15,409)
Action taken to overcome skills gaps (LEA)
68%
56%
46%
45%
33%
27%
20%
10%
15%
Increase training activity / spend or increase / expand traineeprogrammes
More supervision of staff
More staff appraisals / performance reviews
Implementation of mentoring / buddying scheme
Reallocating work
Changing work practices
Increase recruitment activity / spend
Recruiting workers who are non-UK nationals
Nothing
80% Brighton and Hove
8% Havering
40% Waltham Forest
Indicates where an impact is most prevalent
in a single LEA
73% Slough
52% Hammersmith and Fulham
52% Wandsworth
40% Wolverhampton
36% Lambeth
68%
56%
46%
45%
33%
27%
20%
10%
15%
Increase training activity / spend or increase / expand traineeprogrammes
More supervision of staff
More staff appraisals / performance reviews
Implementation of mentoring / buddying scheme
Reallocating work
Changing work practices
Increase recruitment activity / spend
Recruiting workers who are non-UK nationals
Nothing
Action taken to overcome skills gaps (LEP)
58% West of England
25% Cumbria
Base: All establishments with skills gaps (15,409)
29% Buckinghamshire Thames Valley
Indicates where an impact is most prevalent
in a single LEP
76% Northamptonshire
65% London
57% Black Country
42% Thames Valley Berkshire
34% Thames Valley Berkshire
19% London
Section 4:
Under-utilisation
23
Density of under-utilisation by LEA
Base: All establishments (as shown)
7.0%
15.5% 15.4%
11.9% 11.8% 11.7%
4.6% 4.4% 4.3% 4.1% 3.4%
Skills under-utilisationdensity
High LEAs Low LEAs
En
gla
nd
Ru
tla
nd
Re
dc
ar
an
d
Cle
ve
lan
d
Kn
ow
sle
y
Sa
lfo
rd
Du
dle
y
Lam
be
th
Old
ha
m
Wig
an
St
He
len
s
Mid
dle
sb
rou
gh
(252) (313) (250) (118) (412) (202) (304) (73) (261) (75,129) (167)
Density of under-utilisation by LEP
Base: All establishments (as shown)
7.0%
10.4% 8.9% 8.3% 8.2% 8.2%
5.7% 5.7% 5.6% 5.2% 4.8%
Skills under-utilisationdensity
High LEPs Low LEPs
En
gla
nd
Co
as
t to
Ca
pit
al
Hu
mb
er
Sw
ind
on
an
d
Wil
tsh
ire
Th
e M
arc
he
s
Lan
cash
ire
Lo
nd
on
Gt
Ca
mb
rid
ge
&
Gt
Pe
terb
oro
ug
h
Ch
es
hir
e a
nd
Wa
rrin
gto
n
Ne
w A
ng
lia
Te
es
Va
lle
y
(1,354) (10,629) (1,239) (1,016) (1,876) (2,153) (1,334) (2,282) (1,353) (75,129) (2,364)
10%
1%
3%
4%
4%
4%
7%
7%
9%
10%
10%
15%
26%
Not particular reason / it just happened
They have more than one job
Qualifications / skills not relevant to job role
Competition for higher level roles / struggling to get higher leveljob
Family-run business
Actively seek staff with quals / skills beyond needs
Temporary role / stop gap
Attractive conditions of employment
They own the business / are a partner in the business
To gain experience / current role is lower level in same industryas desired higher level role
Lack of jobs in desired higher level role
Working hours suit them better
They are not interested in taking on higher level role
Reasons for under-utilisation (LEA)
Base: All establishments with under-utilised staff (22,879)
53% Halton
39% Southend on Sea
32% Slough
14% Luton
26% Bolton
29% Harrow
19% Hammersmith and Fulham
17% Oldham
21% Isle of Wight
13% Solihull
12% Greenwich
53% Halton Indicates where an impact is most
prevalent in a single LEA
Reasons for under-utilisation (LEP)
Base: All establishments with under-utilised staff (22,879)
10%
1%
3%
4%
4%
4%
7%
7%
9%
10%
10%
15%
26%
Not particular reason / it just happened
They have more than one job
Qualifications / skills not relevant to job role
Competition for higher level roles / struggling to get higher leveljob
Family-run business
Actively seek staff with quals / skills beyond needs
Temporary role / stop gap
Attractive conditions of employment
They own the business / are a partner in the business
To gain experience / current role is lower level in same industryas desired higher level role
Lack of jobs in desired higher level role
Working hours suit them better
They are not interested in taking on higher level role 41% New Anglia
27% Buckinghamshire Thames Valley
13% Thames Valley Berkshire
20% Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
20% West of England
10% Buckinghamshire Thames Valley
6% Worcestershire
17% Black Country Indicates where an impact is most
prevalent in a single LEP
Section 5:
Training and Workforce Development
28
66%
86% 81% 79% 79% 78%
56% 56% 55% 52% 51%
En
gla
nd
Ha
lto
n
Ply
mo
uth
Ru
tla
nd
Re
ad
ing
To
we
r H
am
lets
Be
xle
y
Bre
nt
Ha
rin
ge
y
Ba
rkin
g a
nd
Da
ge
nh
am
Wa
lth
am
Fo
res
t
Proportion of employers training over the previous 12 months by
LEA
Base: All establishments (as shown)
(73) (196) (315) (228) (246) (147) (135) (271) (124) (75,129) (193)
High LEAs Low LEAs
66%
72% 71% 71% 70% 70% 65% 64% 64% 64% 64%
En
gla
nd
Liv
erp
oo
l C
ity
Re
gio
n
So
len
t
We
st
of
En
gla
nd
Tee
s V
alle
y
Th
am
es
Va
lle
yB
erk
sh
ire
Glo
uc
es
ters
hir
e
Cu
mb
ria
Lee
ds
Cit
y R
eg
ion
Th
e M
arc
he
s
He
art
of
the S
ou
thW
es
t
Proportion of employers training over the previous 12 months by
LEP
Base: All establishments (as shown)
High LEPs Low LEPs
(1,560) (1,353) (1,019) (991) (914) (4,049) (1,239) (1,982) (1,492) (75,129) (2,777)
66% 34%
42% 58%
don’t train
of employers in training equilibrium (no desire to increase training)
46% 52% 2%
Wanted to train more Do sufficient training Wanted to train No training need
(Base: 57,422) (Base:17,007)
of employers want to train more
Training Equilibrium: employers’ interest in providing more training
than they were able to
Among those
who train
Among those
who don’t train
of all employers train
Base: All establishments (75,129) *Note training employers responding ‘Don’t know’ have been included in the group ‘Wanted to undertake more training’ on final measure
Don’t know
30% 70%
Training Equilibrium: LEAs most likely to want to undertake more
training
(Base: All establishments, as shown)
Haringey
(147)
40%
In training equilibrium
60%
Wanted to undertake
more training
Wolverhampton
(316)
44%
In training equilibrium
56%
Wanted to undertake
more training
Lambeth
(313)
45%
In training equilibrium
55%
Wanted to undertake
more training
Southwark
(444) 47%
In training equilibrium
53%
Wanted to undertake
more training
Hounslow
(272)
47%
In training equilibrium
53%
Wanted to undertake
more training
(No desire for more training)
Training Equilibrium: LEPs most likely to want to undertake more
training
(Base: All establishments, as shown)
Black Country
(1,381)
53%
In training equilibrium
47%
Wanted to undertake
more training
London
(10,629)
53%
In training equilibrium
47%
Wanted to undertake
more training
Derby, Derbyshire,
Nottingham and
Nottinghamshire
(313)
55%
In training equilibrium
45%
Wanted to undertake
more training
Tees Valley
(1,353) 55%
In training equilibrium
45%
Wanted to undertake
more training
Liverpool City Region
(1,492)
56%
In training equilibrium
44%
Wanted to undertake
more training
(No desire for more training)
63%
79% 78% 77% 77% 76%
51% 51% 51% 48% 48%
Proportion of staff trained
41k 38k 44k 42k 14.8m 70k 43k 81k 37k 43k 81k
Total no. of staff trained:
Number and proportion of staff trained by LEA
Base: All establishments (as shown)
(406) (237)
En
gla
nd
Bla
ck
po
ol
Ply
mo
uth
He
refo
rds
hir
e
So
uth
am
pto
n
Me
rto
n
(252) (292)
To
rbay
We
st
Be
rks
hir
e
Ha
ck
ne
y
Kir
kle
es
(75,129)
Liv
erp
oo
l
(475)
High LEAs Low LEAs
(495) (160) (271) (176) (230)
63%
72% 71% 71% 68% 68%
57% 57% 56% 56% 54%
Proportion of staff trained
131k 158k 503k 255k 14.8m 171k 161k 407k 309k 473k 371k
Total no. of staff trained:
Number and proportion of staff trained by LEP
Base: All establishments (as shown)
(956) (1,239)
En
gla
nd
Liv
erp
oo
l C
ity
Re
gio
n
Ch
es
hir
e a
nd
Wa
rrin
go
tn
Wo
rce
ste
rsh
ire
He
rtfo
rdsh
ire
Th
e M
arc
he
s
(3,127) (1,019)
He
art
of
the S
ou
th
We
st
De
rby e
tc.
Th
am
es
Va
lle
y
Be
rks
hir
e
No
rth
am
pto
ns
hir
e
(75,129)
Cu
mb
ria
(1,163)
High LEPs Low LEPs
(914) (1,492) (1,334) (2,777) (1,717)
4.2
11.4
9.6
7.6 6.7 6.3
2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.3
6.8
20.3
17.9
12.0
8.5 9.9
4.7 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.2
Days per employee Days per trainee
Ho
un
slo
w
No
ttin
gh
am
Ca
lde
rda
le
Wo
kin
gh
am
Lam
be
th
Training days provided by LEA
Base: All establishments (as shown)
Note: Days per employee shown as an average for all employment across all establishments; days per trainee shown as an average of all trainees
(272) (427)
En
gla
nd
De
rby
Te
lfo
rd a
nd
Wre
kin
Se
fto
n
(337) (173)
Liv
erp
oo
l
(57,422)
Bla
ck
bu
rn w
ith
Da
rwe
n
(313)
High LEAs Low LEAs
(176) (329) (215) (495) (287)
4.2
5.7 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.1
3.8 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.2
6.8
8.0 7.6 7.6
9.0
7.9
6.0 6.5 6.3 6.5
5.8
Days per employee Days per trainee
Training days provided by LEP
Base: All establishments (as shown)
Note: Days per employee shown as an average for all employment across all establishments; days per trainee shown as an average of all trainees
(1,848) (1,055)
En
gla
nd
Cu
mb
ria
He
art
of
the S
ou
th
We
st
Sh
eff
ield
Cit
y
Re
gio
n
Lan
cash
ire
Bla
ck
Co
un
try
(1,887) (901)
Wo
rce
ste
rsh
ire
So
uth
Ea
st
Mid
lan
ds
No
rth
am
pto
ns
hir
e
Th
am
es
Va
lle
y
Be
rks
hir
e
(57,422)
Liv
erp
oo
l C
ity
Re
gio
n
(830)
High LEPs Low LEPs
(1,180) (650) (2,106) (736) (1,436)
