Staff Annual Diversity Report 2010

Microsoft Word - Staff ADR2010 _Final_.docx- 1 -
The University of Nottingham’s Commitment to diversity
The University's aim is to attract, retain and motivate high quality individuals and to provide equality of opportunity in order to maximise the benefit to the University from the diversity of its workforce and student population. Diversity expresses itself in many ways - by age, gender, race, culture, physical and mental ability, religion - and these differences are celebrated. We aim to maximise everyone’s potential by harnessing these differences and creating a productive environment in which all are valued; where our talents are fully utilised and organisational goals are achieved.
The University’s senior management team is committed to the diversity agenda. Head of Schools and Departments have been working with Human Resources Advisers on the delivery of a number of diversity targets.
Purpose
In support of this commitment this report documents and summaries key trends in relation to the University’s performance in the areas of equality and diversity, with an aim of highlighting successes and informing the planning process to target areas where improvements should be made. The report focuses on performance trends in 4 main areas:
University Staff Profile
Recruitment and Selection
Staff recognition and reward
Staff promotion and regrading
In addition to the trend date described above, this report also presents an opportunity to summarise the main activities over the previous year and set out broad areas of activity planned for the coming year (with detailed commitments and targets contained in the various action plans associated with the equality schemes).
Summary of monitoring – key trends and issues
The detailed data can be found from page 4, but the key findings are:
Profile: there has been a slight increase in the overall number of people employed at the University, but no major changes in the organisational profile. In terms of gender and race the University is in line with national populations and the issues remain ones of uneven grade distribution and occupational segregation along traditional lines. Whilst slow, however, progress has been made on these fronts.
- 3 -
The numbers of disabled staff remains very low in all areas and at all levels. This is believed to reflect two factors; low numbers of disabled people employed at the University and a failure to declare disability by staff.
Recruitment: within recruitment both minority ethnic and disabled interviewees continue to be slightly less successful than their white and non-disabled counterparts. Men are also applying in fewer numbers than women and are also less likely to be appointed than women.
Recognition and reward: the clearest patterns within the assessment of performance and the distribution of additional performance related pay is to where individuals are within the scale at the point of assessment and the distribution of outcomes by all other factors would appear to be most greatly influenced by this.
Promotion and regrading: there do not appear to be any concerning patterns within the promotions outcomes, other than to note the very small numbers of applications from part time staff. There is a clear link between age and level at the University which is not unusual in a knowledge based organisation. Equally the regarding process does not show any areas of concern.
Activity in 2009 -2010
The main focus of activity in the academic year 2009/10 has been to undertake reviews of the gender, race and disability schemes and devise new action plans and targets. A number of staff contributed their views through a number of means including a newly developed consultation Workspace, focus groups and open invitation.
The University completed two indices of performance in the area of Equality and Diversity: ‘Universities that Count’ (which focuses primarily on the areas of sustainability and corporate social responsibility) and the ‘Stonewall Workplace Employers Index’ (the University joined the Diversity Champions programme in 2009) which will be used to inform how the University can improve its management and performance in Equality and Diversity and how best to use its resources.
We also undertook a ‘Work and Wellbeing’ survey and took the opportunity to extend the characteristics included in the monitoring questions to include religion and sexual orientation. The results are still being used to inform actions but the University was generally pleased with the overall picture it presented of what it is like to work at the University.
There was a major exercise undertaken across the University during 2009/10 to produce a new University plan. This plan contains renewed commitments to equality and diversity and specific targets to increase diversity particularly at senior levels. (see: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/About/Values/Universityvalues.aspx)
Finally, continuing the record of success for the award, the University achieved a fifth silver Athena SWAN Charter award, this time in the School of Physics and Astronomy. The awards recognise commitment to increasing the number in Science, Engineering and Technology disciplines.
Looking forward to 2010 - 2011
The first task for Human Resources will be to ensure that its policies are compliant with the revised and extended definitions of characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010 as it comes into force in October.
Having reviewed the three existing equality schemes and implemented two year action plans, it is planned that significant time will be devoted to the development of strategic objectives in the areas of age, religious belief and sexual orientation in line with requirements of the Equality Act, in time for the implementation of this element in April 2011. The detailed requirements for this part of the Act will not be published for some time, consultation ending in November 2010.
Improving communication will remain a theme: – the HR department is embarking on a significant project to redesign and improve its website, which is where a great deal of equality and diversity relevant material is currently held. The linked Equality and Diversity site will be included in that review. By developing the new Workspace tool it is hoped that consultation and communication with staff from different groups and communities within the University will become easier and more responsive. The recruitment toolkit will also be revised.
Within Professional Development will be introducing a targeted programme of mandatory training for managers which will include key aspects of managing equality and diversity issues.
- 5 -
1 Employee Profile date and trends
Employee profile figures are based on a 1st June census date. This is the latest point in the academic year when sessional staff remain in post. Figures are given by headcount, unless otherwise stated. Trends in the employee profile are considered over the last three years.
1.1 Gender
The graph below (Figure 1.1.1 Gender Profile (Headcount)) shows that the gender balance of the University is fairly even with the University employing slightly more women than men. Over the last 3 years the University staff numbers have continued to grow steadily whilst maintaining its equally balanced gender distribution.
Figure 1.1.1 Gender Profile (Headcount)
2008 2009 2010
Table 1.1.1 Gender Profile (Headcount)
- 6 -
1.2 Ethnicity
The ethnicity profile of the University continues to be representative of the Nottingham East Midlands Area (Comparable data taken from the 2001 Census).
The University population is largely white (84%) compared with (81%) for the wider Nottingham area. However 4.3% of the university population has an unknown ethnicity.
Figure 1.2.1 Ethnicity Profile (Headcount)
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
Total 5,728 84.6% 5,879 84.1% 5,951 84.5%
Asian / Asian British
Chinese / Chinese British
Black / Black British
Mixed 69 1.% 78 1.1% 76 1.1%
Other 61 0.9% 71 1.% 79 1.1%
Ethnic Minority
Not Known 297 4.4% 348 5.% 302 4.3%Not Known
Total 297 4.4% 348 5.% 302 4.3%
Total 6,768 100.% 6,990 100.% 7,046 100.%
Table 1.2.1 Ethnicity Profile (Headcount)
- 7 -
Within the ethnic minority group the university population does have a significantly higher representation of Chinese, Chinese British (30%) compared with a local comparative population of (6%) This could be due to the international presence of the University in the Chinese Asia region. All other Ethnic groups remain comparable with the local area however Other and Mixed are slightly lower than their local comparator.
Figure 1.2.2 Ethnicity Profile proportional distribution
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
Black / Black British 142 19% 123 16% 144 18%
Mixed 69 9% 78 10% 76 10%
Other 61 8% 71 9% 79 10%
Total 743 100% 763 100% 793 100%
- 8 -
1.3 Disability
Just under 2% of University employees have declared a disability, showing a minor year on year increase from 2008. This is still some way short of the 2014/2015 target of 4% referenced in the 2010-2015 University plan and therefore will require some focus over the coming years. The University has show a slight improvement from 2009 in reducing the Unknown category from 5.2% to 4.4%.
Figure 1.3.1 Disability Profile (Headcount)
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
Declared Non- Disabled
Not Known 278 4.1% 361 5.2% 309 4.4%
Total 6,768 100.% 6,990 100.% 7,046 100.%
Table 1.3.1 Disability Profile (Headcount)
- 9 -
1.4 Age
The age profile of University employees continues to show a good balanced distribution compared t o the working population of the local area, As you would expect in an academic environment 16-24 are under represented due to the complexity of the work performed by the institution. However this proportion of under representation in one area is equally distributed through out the other age groups. Future changes in the retirement age legislation may see an impact in the +65 category compared to previous years.
Figure 1.4.1 Age Profile (Headcount)
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
Table 1.4.1 Age Profile (Headcount)
- 10 -
1.5 Mode of Employment
The University recognises the needs of staff to balance their work commitments with that of family, parental and other responsibilities. In order to remain competitive in the employment market place the university has adopted a number of family friendly polices that enable a more flexible way of working for both the employer and employee to ensure it can maximise the contribution form its workforce.
As a result of this commitment 28% of University’s workforce work part-time hours. This trend has remained consistent over the last 3 years.
Figure 1.5.1 Mode of Employment Profile
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
Table 1.5.1 Mode of Employment Profile
- 11 -
Gender and Mode of Employment
Although flexible working arrangement are available to both male and female employees, as with the majority of employers, flexible working arrangements are requested and worked in the main by female employees. Although there has been a slight increase in males working part time, up 1% from previous years, the gender breakdown of those working part-time is more women (41%) than men (15%) work part-time.
Figure 1.5.2 Gender and Mode of Employment
2008 2009 2010
- 12 -
Ethnicity and Mode of Employment
Over the three year period, proportionally there has been no change in full time / part time working in the minority ethnic employee population as a whole. However, significantly higher proportion of Black/Black British employees continue to work part-time than other minority groups.
Figure 1.5.3 Ethnicity and Mode of Employment
Full- Time
White
Mixed
Other 2,008 44 72% 17 28% 61
- 13 -
Ethnic Minority Total
Not Known
Total
Table 1.5.3 Ethnicity and Mode of Employment
Disability and Mode of Employment
Proportionally more staff with disabilities work part time than the overall University working population. The University continues to demonstrate the benefits of its flexible working and reasonable adjustment policies in demonstrating that working commitments can be balanced with individual’s personal needs.
Figure 1.5.4 Disability and Mode of Employment
Full-Time Part-Time
Not Known 189 68% 89 32% 278
2008
2009 Declared Disabled 76 66% 40 34% 116
- 14 -
Not Known 273 76% 88 24% 361
Total 5,078 73% 1,912 27% 6,990
Declared Disabled 82 65% 44 35% 126
Not Known 224 72% 85 28% 309
2010
Table 1.5.4 Disability and Mode of Employment
Age and Mode of Employment
Apart from the highest age group +65 where there is a significantly smaller data set, part time working is evenly distributed throughout the majority of age groups. The lowest proportion of part-time employees occurs in the 25-34 age bracket at 19% where the majority of staff are starting their careers. The trend shows that the proportions have remained consistent between 2008 and 2010.
Figure 1.5.5 Age and Mode of Employment
- 15 -
16-24 137 61% 87 39% 224
25-34 1,369 81% 320 19% 1,689
35-44 1,410 72% 553 28% 1,963
45-54 1,207 70% 507 30% 1,714
55-64 710 64% 401 36% 1,111
65+ 19 28% 48 72% 67
2008
2009
2010
Table 1.5.5 Age and Mode of Employment
- 16 -
1.6 Contract Status
The contract status profile of the university shows that the proportion of permanent/indefinite and fixed term contracts has remained consistent for the last 3 years at 80% permanent and 20% fixed-term employees.
Figure 1.6.1 Contract Status Profile
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
Table 1.6.1 Contract Status Profile
- 17 -
Gender and Contract Status
The gender split of staff on fixed term contracts is equally distributed and has been for the last 3 years
Figure 1.6.2 Gender and Contract Status
Fixed-Term Permanent
2008
2009
2010
Table 1.6.2 Gender and Contract Status (number)
- 18 -
Ethnicity and Contract Status
A significantly higher proportion of Ethnic Minority / Unknown staff are employed on fixed term contracts compared to White employees. This reflects the higher use of fixed-term contracts and higher number of employees from ethnic minority groups in research and teaching occupations; see section 1.8.
Figure 1.6.3 Ethnicity and Contract Status
- 19 -
Asian / Asian British 91 37% 157 63% 248
Black / Black British 16 11% 126 89% 142
Mixed 30 43% 39 57% 69
Other 25 41% 36 59% 61
Ethnic Minority
Not Known 128 43% 169 57% 297Not Known
Total 128 43% 169 57% 297
2008
Mixed 30 38% 48 62% 78
Other 30 42% 41 58% 71
Ethnic Minority
Total 168 48% 180 52% 348
2009
Mixed 22 29% 54 71% 76
Other 37 47% 42 53% 79
Ethnic Minority
Total 134 44% 168 56% 302
2010
- 20 -
Disability and Contract Status
The proportion of declared disabled employed on a fixed-term basis has increased in 2010 by 9%. This trend is different compared to staff declared as non disabled where the proportion has stayed the same over the last 3 years.
Figure 1.6.4 Disability and Contract Status
Not Known 128 46% 150 54% 278
2008
Not Known 198 55% 163 45% 361
2009
Not Known 151 49% 158 51% 309
2010
Age and Contract Status
A higher proportion of employees over 65 (46%) and employees aged 25-34 are employed on a fixed-term basis (46%) than other age bands.
- 21 -
In most age groups the proportion of employees who are employed on a fixed- term basis was consistent. An exception to this is the over 65 group where the data set is small and the numbers suggest that a significant proportion of permanent employee retired between 2008 and 2009. Age 24-34 also marks the period for the commencement of academic careers, particularly in research focussed roles which also tend to be funded through short term grants from Research Councils.
Figure 1.6.5 Age and Contract Status
16-24 76 34% 148 66% 224
25-34 748 44% 941 56% 1,689
35-44 323 16% 1,640 84% 1,963
45-54 139 8% 1,575 92% 1,714
55-64 69 6% 1,042 94% 1,111
65+ 25 37% 42 63% 67
2008
2009
2010
- 22 -
1.7 Level
In general the number of staff at each level in the organisation1 has continued to rise slightly, between 2008 and 2010, with the overall grade distribution remaining very stable. Growth in the overall number of employees over the three years has been approximately 4%.
Level 6 has enjoyed the highest increase in percentage terms, 9% over the three years (there being approximately twice as many staff in each of grades 4 and 5 than in 6, the overall proportion has remained even). Levels 1 and 7 have reduced in actual numbers, but by very small amounts with level 7 evening out after a ‘dip’ in 2009.
Figure 1.7.1 Level Profile
Table 1.7.1 Level Profile
1 Where an employee is not employed on a grade within the University levels the closest equivalent
level has been allocated for the purposes of this report according to grade and/or salary. Level 4 includes level 4A and the level 4 training grades and level 5 includes the ‘Extended Lecturer Level 5’ grade.
- 23 -
Gender and Level
The gender profile by level within the organisation continues to show a decrease in the proportion of female employees as the grade level increases. The university plan 2010-2015 sets a target of 33% of female staff in senior roles (levels 6 and 7) by 2014/2015. Although year on year since 2008 the proportion of female staff at senior levels has shown small improvements, this is an area where continued focus is required.
Figure 1.7.2 Gender and Level Profile Trend
Female Male
2008
2009
- 24 -
Table 1.7.2 Gender and Level
Ethnicity and Level
There continues to be a higher concentration of ethnic minority employees at levels 1 and 4 within the organisation than at the other levels. These anomalies are due to a large proportion of Black and Black British in level 1 roles and a large proportion of Chinese / Chinese British in Level 4 roles.
Figure 1.7.3 (a) Ethnicity and Level Profile
Figure 1.7.3 (b) Ethnic Minority Profile by Level
25
Ethnic Minority No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
25 16% 35 51% 21 49% 82 31% 43 39% 16 34% 26 48% 248 33%
25 16% 14 21% 9 21% 114 43% 33 30% 19 40% 9 17% 223 30%
86 55% 11 16% 6 14% 19 7% 12 11% 2 4% 6 11% 142 19%
Mixed 11 7% 4 6% 5 12% 27 10% 12 11% 5 11% 5 9% 69 9%
Other 10 6% 4 6% 2 5% 23 9% 9 8% 5 11% 8 15% 61 8%
2008
Total 157 100% 68 100% 43 100% 265 100% 109 100% 47 100% 54 100% 743 100%
25 19% 35 48% 33 56% 82 31% 47 38% 17 35% 27 46% 266 35%
19 14% 12 16% 11 19% 113 42% 38 30% 21 44% 11 19% 225 29%
62 47% 12 16% 8 14% 20 7% 14 11% 2 4% 5 8% 123 16%
Mixed 14 11% 5 7% 5 8% 27 10% 16 13% 4 8% 7 12% 78 10%
Other 12 9% 9 12% 2 3% 25 9% 10 8% 4 8% 9 15% 71 9%
2009
Total 132 100% 73 100% 59 100% 267 100% 125 100% 48 100% 59 100% 763 100%
24 15% 28 45% 37 57% 76 30% 48 38% 16 30% 30 45% 259 33%
30 18% 10 16% 11 17% 108 42% 38 30% 25 47% 13 19% 235 30%
82 50% 9 15% 9 14% 23 9% 13 10% 2 4% 6 9% 144 18%
Mixed 16 10% 8 13% 5 8% 19 7% 18 14% 4 8% 6 9% 76 10%
Other 12 7% 7 11% 3 5% 29 11% 10 8% 6 11% 12 18% 79 10%
2010
Total 164 100% 62 100% 65 100% 255 100% 127 100% 53 100% 67 100% 793 100%
Table 1.7.3 Ethnicity and Level
- 26 -
Disability and Level
Levels 1 and 4 have both the highest proportions of declared disabled staff and the highest proportions of staff for whom disability status is unknown. The proportion of staff with a disability at the higher levels is lower than at the lower levels.
Figure 1.7.4 (a) Declared Disability and Level
Figure 1.7.4 (b) Declared Disability and Level
- 27 -
1 29 2.6% 1,011 91.1% 70 6.3% 1,110
2 15 1.8% 794 96.4% 15 1.8% 824
3 12 1.7% 677 94.8% 25 3.5% 714
4 25 1.5% 1,530 91.9% 110 6.6% 1,665
5 19 1.7% 1,071 95.5% 32 2.9% 1,122
6 5 0.8% 592 97.5% 10 1.6% 607
7 4 0.6% 706 97.2% 16 2.2% 726
2008
2009
2010
Table 1.7.4 Disability and Level
Age and Level
The distribution of age within levels is representative of the experience required at more senior roles level 5 and above. Between levels 1 and 4 the distribution of age within each level is more equal. In the main this distribution has remained consistent over the last 3 years
Figure 1.7.5 Age and Level
- 28 -
% 10% 15% 20% 28% 25% 3% 100%
No. 59 223 208 183 150 1 8242
% 7% 27% 25% 22% 18% 0% 100%
No. 25 247 176 165 101 7143
% 4% 35% 25% 23% 14% 100%
No. 28 736 447 292 153 9 1,6654
% 2% 44% 27% 18% 9% 1% 100%
No. 255 471 273 118 5 1,1225
% 23% 42% 24% 11% 0% 100%
No. 30 266 201 107 3 6076
% 5% 44% 33% 18% 0% 100%
No. 3 28 177 293 204 21 7267
% 0% 4% 24% 40% 28% 3% 100%
No. 224 1,689 1,963 1,714 1,111 67 6,768
2008
No. 91 170 205 303 303 6 1,0781
% 8% 16% 19% 28% 28% 1% 100%
No. 53 235 228 192 154 2 8642
% 6% 27% 26% 22% 18% 0% 100%
No. 24 253 188 179 113 2 7593
% 3% 33% 25% 24% 15% 0% 100%
No. 28 756 482 313 166 7 1,7524
% 2% 43% 28% 18% 9% 0% 100%
No. 1 263 491 273 133 8 1,1695
% 0% 22% 42% 23% 11% 1% 100%
No. 42 260 228 115 9 6546
% 6% 40% 35% 18% 1% 100%
No. 5 21 152 297 220 19 7147
% 1% 3% 21% 42% 31% 3% 100%
No. 202 1,740 2,006 1,785 1,204 53 6,990
2009
No. 109 175 207 307 281 4 1,0831
% 10% 16% 19% 28% 26% 0% 100%
No. 36 233 221 199 145 4 8382
% 4% 28% 26% 24% 17% 0% 100%
No. 16 221 197 197 122 1 7543
% 2% 29% 26% 26% 16% 0% 100%
No. 28 767 499 294 172 8 1,7684
% 2% 43% 28% 17% 10% 0% 100%
No. 1 274 498 300 137 4 1,2145
% 0% 23% 41% 25% 11% 0% 100%
No. 38 245 245 123 16 6676
% 6% 37% 37% 18% 2% 100%
No. 4 33 130 301 237 17 7227
% 1% 5% 18% 42% 33% 2% 100%
No. 194 1,741 1,997 1,843 1,217 54 7,046
2010
Table 1.7.5 Age and Level
- 29 -
The occupational group for the University are represented as follows
APM: Administrative, Professional & Managerial
C&M: Clinical & Medical-Related
TS: Technical Services
The occupational groups used are based on the University job families. Where a member of staff is not in one of the job families, they have been allocated to the most appropriate job family grouping or the clinical and medical-related staff group. The largest occupational staff group is research and teaching with 44% of staff, followed by administrative, professional and managerial staff, who constitute 30%. The proportion of staff in these staff groups has increased slightly over the past three years. The proportion of staff in operations and facilities roles is 14% which has remained constant over the last 3 years. The proportion of staff in clinical and medical-related, childcare services and technical services roles has remained constant at 3%, 0.3% and 9% of staff respectively.
Figure 1.8.1 Occupational Staff Group Profile
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
C&M 219 3% 217 3% 218 3%
CCS 23 0% 24 0% 25 0%
O&F 971 14% 948 14% 971 14%
R&T 2,944 43% 3,060 44% 3,097 44%
TS 605 9% 630 9% 617 9%
Total 6,768 100% 6,990 100% 7,046 100%
Table 1.8.1 Occupational Staff Group Profile
- 30 -
Gender and Occupational Staff Group
Whilst overall the University has an even gender balance, there are clear signs of occupational segregation by gender with women representing over three quarters of administrative, professional and managerial and 100% of childcare services employees. Conversely, over three-quarters of clinical and medical-related staff, 59% of research and teaching staff and 61% of technical services employees are male. The operations and facilities staff group is the most gender balanced with an equal percentage of male and female staff.
The gender balance in all areas has remained pretty consistent year on year over the last 3 years.
Figure 1.8.2 Gender and Occupational Staff Group 2009
Female Male
C&M 52 24% 167 76% 219
CCS 23 100% 23
TS 243 40% 362 60% 605
2008
C&M 57 26% 160 74% 217
CCS 24 100% 24
TS 245 39% 385 61% 630
2009
- 31 -
C&M 56 26% 162 74% 218
CCS 25 100% 25
TS 238 39% 379 61% 617
2010
Table 1.8.2 Gender and Occupational Staff Group
Ethnicity and Occupational Staff Group
There is also evidence of occupational segregation by ethnicity, with a considerably higher proportion of ethnic minority staff in Clinical and Medical, research and teaching and operations and facilities roles than in administrative, professional and managerial or Technical Services roles. In all of the occupational staff groups, the proportion of ethnic minority staff between 2008 and 2010 remain quite consistent.
Figure 1.8.3 (a) Ethnicity and Occupational Staff Group
- 32 -
33
Year and Ethnicity No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Total
White 1,856 32% 172 3% 20 0% 766 13% 2,390 42% 524 9% 5,728White
Total 1,856 32% 172 3% 20 0% 766 13% 2,390 42% 524 9% 5,728
59 24% 29 12% 1 0% 20 8% 115 46% 24 10% 248
23 10% 2 1% 1 0% 23 10% 166 74% 8 4% 223
22 15% 4 3% 1 1% 86 61% 28 20% 1 1% 142
Mixed 10 14% 2 3% 8 12% 45 65% 4 6% 69
Other 8 13% 3 5% 6 10% 41 67% 3 5% 61
Ethnic Minority
Total 122 16% 40 5% 3 0% 143 19% 395 53% 40 5% 743
Not Known 28 9% 7 2% 62 21% 159 54% 41 14% 297Not Known Total 28 9% 7 2% 62 21% 159 54% 41 14% 297
2008
Total 2,006 30% 219 3% 23 0% 971 14% 2,944 43% 605 9% 6,768
White 1,946 33% 169 3% 22 0% 776 13% 2,428 41% 538 9% 5,879White
Total 1,946 33% 169 3% 22 0% 776 13% 2,428 41% 538 9% 5,879
65 24% 30 11% 1 0% 22 8% 120 45% 28 11% 266
24 11% 2 1% 17 8% 173 77% 9 4% 225
24 20% 4 3% 1 1% 62 50% 29 24% 3 2% 123
Mixed 16 21% 2 3% 7 9% 46 59% 7 9% 78
Other 10 14% 3 4% 8 11% 46 65% 4 6% 71
Ethnic Minority
Total 139 18% 41 5% 2 1% 116 15% 414 54% 51 7% 763
Not Known 26 7% 7 2% 56 16% 218 63% 41 12% 348Not Known
Total 26 7% 7 2% 56 16% 218 63% 41 12% 348
2009
Total 2,111 30% 217 3% 24 0% 948 14% 3,060 44% 630 9% 6,990
White 1,950 33% 166 3% 23 0% 774 13% 2,507 42% 531 9% 5,951White
Total 1,950 33% 166 3% 23 0% 774 13% 2,507 42% 531 9% 5,951
72 28% 32 12% 1 0% 21 8% 107 41% 26 10% 259
25 11% 2 1% 26 11% 173 74% 9 4% 235
19 13% 5 3% 1 1% 83 58% 32 22% 4 3% 144
Mixed 17 22% 2 3% 11 14% 38 50% 8 11% 76
Other 9 11% 5 6% 8 10% 54 68% 3 4% 79
Ethnic Minority
Total 142 18% 46 6% 2 0% 149 19% 404 51% 50 6% 793
Not Known 26 9% 6 2% 48 16% 186 62% 36 12% 302Not Known
Total 26 9% 6 2% 48 16% 186 62% 36 12% 302
2010
Total 2,118 30% 218 3% 25 0% 971 14% 3,097 44% 617 9% 7,046
Table 1.8.3 Ethnicity and Occupational Staff Group
34
Disability and Occupational Staff Group
The largest proportion of declared disabled staff occurs in the operations and facilities and APM staff groups at 2.8% and 2.1% respectively, There are no declared disabled staff in clinical and medical and childcare services roles. The proportion of staff for whom disability status is unknown is highest in the operations and facilities, research and teaching and technical services staff groups, all of which have a high proportion of devolved recruitment practices.
The proportion of staff who have declared a disability has risen between 2008 and 2010
Figure 1.8.4 Disability and Occupational Staff Group
35
Staff Group No. % No. % No. % Total
APM 37 1.8% 1,952 97.3% 17 0.8% 2,006
C&M 215 98.2% 4 1.8% 219
CCS 22 95.7% 1 4.3% 23
O&F 24 2.5% 886 91.2% 61 6.3% 971
R&T 41 1.4% 2,738 93.0% 165 5.6% 2,944
TS 7 1.2% 568 93.9% 30 5.0% 605
2008
C&M 213 98.2% 4 1.8% 217
CCS 23 95.8% 1 4.2% 24
O&F 28 3.0% 870 91.8% 50 5.3% 948
R&T 41 1.3% 2,774 90.7% 245 8.0% 3,060
TS 8 1.3% 586 93.0% 36 5.7% 630
2009
C&M 214 98.2% 4 1.8% 218
CCS 24 96.0% 1 4.0% 25
O&F 27 2.8% 898 92.5% 46 4.7% 971
R&T 47 1.5% 2,850 92.0% 200 6.5% 3,097
TS 7 1.1% 576 93.4% 34 5.5% 617
2010
Table 1.8.4 Disability and Occupational Staff Group
Age and Occupational Staff Group
The youngest group is in childcare services where the age band with the largest proportion of staff is 25 to 34 and 80% of staff are under 35. The APM and research and teaching staff groups have the largest proportion of staff in the 35 to 44 age band with over three quarters of staff aged between 25 and 54. The clinical and medical-related, operations and facilities and technical services staff groups have the highest proportion of staff in the 45 to 54 year old age band. In clinical and medical-related and operations and facilities staff groups over three quarters of staff are aged 35 to 64, whereas in technical services the age spread is wider with a quarter of staff aged 25 to 34. Across all occupational staff groups the proportion of 16 to 24 year olds has in the main decreased.
36
37
Age and Occupational Staff Group
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+Occupational Staff Group No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Total
APM 71 4% 475 24% 621 31% 514 26% 320 16% 5 0% 2,006
C&M 1 0% 20 9% 63 29% 89 41% 46 21% 219
CCS 9 39% 9 39% 3 13% 2 9% 23
O&F 76 8% 151 16% 199 20% 277 29% 244 25% 24 2% 971
R&T 40 1% 882 30% 937 32% 680 23% 370 13% 35 1% 2,944
TS 27 4% 152 25% 140 23% 152 25% 131 22% 3 0% 605
2008
Total 224 3% 1,689 25% 1,963 29% 1,714 25% 1,111 16% 67 1% 6,768
APM 62 3% 495 23% 653 31% 542 26% 349 17% 10 0% 2,111
C&M 22 10% 58 27% 91 42% 45 21% 1 0% 217
CCS 8 33% 11 46% 3 13% 2 8% 24
O&F 59 6% 148 16% 191 20% 282 30% 265 28% 3 0% 948
R&T 38 1% 921 30% 953 31% 707 23% 404 13% 37 1% 3,060
TS 35 6% 143 23% 148 23% 161 26% 141 22% 2 0% 630
2009
Total 202 3% 1,740 25% 2,006 29% 1,785 26% 1,204 17% 53 1% 6,990
APM 58 3% 488 23% 649 31% 569 27% 350 17% 4 0% 2,118
C&M 18 8% 54 25% 91 42% 55 25% 218
CCS 5 20% 15 60% 3 12% 2 8% 25
O&F 78 8% 147 15% 200 21% 292 30% 253 26% 1 0% 971
R&T 30 1% 926 30% 945 31% 727 23% 424 14% 45 1% 3,097
TS 23 4% 147 24% 146 24% 162 26% 135 22% 4 1% 617
2010
Total 194 3% 1,741 25% 1,997 28% 1,843 26% 1,217 17% 54 1% 7,046
Table 1.8.5 Age and Occupational Staff Group
38
1.9 Senior Research and Teaching Posts
There has been a gradual increase, 1% year on year, of Females in senior research positions resulting in a proportion of 27% for 2010. This is still some way off the 2014/2015 target of 33% and therefore will require some focus over the coming years
Figure 1.9.1 Gender Profile of Senior Research and Teaching Staff
2008 2009 2010
Table 1.9.1 Gender Profile of Senior Research and Teaching Staff
Ethnicity of Senior Research and Teaching staff
This year has seen a marked increase of senior R+T staff from ethnic minorities up almost 1 % to 7.6%. This improvement is due to an increase in staff from Chinese / Chinese British group and expected due to the international relationships developed in these areas.
39
Figure 1.9.2 Ethnicity Profile of Senior Research and Teaching Staff
Figure 1.9.3 Ethnicity Profile of Senior Research and Teaching Staff
40
Total 935 91.3% 947 90.3% 939 89.1%
Mixed 8 0.8% 9 0.9% 8 0.8%
Other 11 1.1% 11 1.% 15 1.4%
Ethnic Minority
Not Known 22 2.1% 31 3.% 35 3.3%Not Known
Total 22 2.1% 31 3.% 35 3.3%
Total 1,024 100.% 1,049 100.% 1,054 100.%
Table 1.9.3 Ethnicity Profile of Senior Research and Teaching Staff
Again there has been a small but positive increase from 2009 of senior research and teaching employees declaring them selves as having a disability.
Figure 1.9.4 Proportion of Senior Research and Teaching Staff with a Declared Disability
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
Not Known 22 2.1% 32 3.1% 37 3.5%
Total 1,024 100.% 1,049 100.% 1,054 100.%
Table 1.9.4 Disability Status Profile of Senior Research and Teaching Staff
41
As you would expect for Senior Research and teaching staff the majority of employees are over 35 (84%) this is due to the experience required to achieve statuses at this level.
Figure 1.9.5 Age Profile of Senior Research and Teaching Staff
2008 2009 2010
No. % No. % No. %
Table 1.9.5 Age Profile of Senior Research and Teaching Staff
42
2 Recruitment
Recruitment monitoring is based on vacancy closing dates occurring in the University financial year of 1st August 2009 to 31st July 20010. These figures only refer to centralised recruitment. Centralised recruitment does not cover most research, operations and facilities and technical services roles.
2.1 Gender
The proportions of male and female applying for roles within the University continues to reflect the overall proportion of male and female staff currently employed, with a slightly higher proportion of female applicants at 56%. However it would also appear that, as candidates progress through the selection process, the proportion of males being offered roles compared to the proportion applying decreases slightly from 44% to 39%.
Figure 2.1.1 Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Gender
Applied Shortlisted Interviewed Offered
Not Known 111 0% 19 1% 17 1% 5 1%
Total 23,971 100% 2,518 100% 2,384 100% 480 100%
Table 2.1.1 Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Gender
43
2.2 Ethnicity
The University continues to attract a higher proportion of applications from ethnic minorities compared to the ethnicity demographic for the local area. However, a proportion of these applications are as a result of online international candidates who do not possess the relevant qualifications for the post, or who require a work permit and have applied for positions where a work permit cannot be obtained without first demonstrating that national recruitment has been unsuccessful. This accounts for the fact that the proportion of ethnic minority candidates drops significantly from the numbers applied to that shortlisted as possible staff. The combined total of ethnic minority and unknown ethnic origin candidates that are offered positions equates to 20%, This is slightly higher than the local ethnicity demographic of 18.93% The proportion of candidates from Chinese / Chinese British origin is significantly higher that the local representation of this group
Figure 2.2.1 (a) Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Ethnicity – All Applicants
Figure 2.2.1 (b) Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Ethnicity – Ethnic Minority Applicants
44
White 16,099 67% 1,953 78% 1,861 78% 386 80%
Asian / Asian British 3,330 14% 176 7% 166 7% 27 6%
Chinese / Chinese British 1,509 6% 158 6% 142 6% 24 5%
Black / Black British 1,295 5% 61 2% 59 2% 7 1%
Mixed 532 2% 52 2% 44 2% 8 2%
Other 498 2% 37 1% 37 2% 9 2%
Ethnic Minority Total 7,164 30% 484 19% 448 19% 75 16%
Not Known 708 3% 81 3% 75 3% 19 4%
Total 23,971 2,518 2,384 480
Table 2.2.1 Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Ethnicity
Whilst the lower success rate from application to interview can be explained by the impact of high overseas applications, the success rate at interview of different racial groups would suggest that at interview White candidates are slightly more successful that those from an ethnic minority.
2.3 Disability
As the recruitment process progresses it can be seen that the overall success of candidates with declared disabilities decreases from application to appointment, The marked drop off is at interview stage where proportionally applicants with a disability falls by 1%.
Figure 2.3.1 Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage with a Declared Disability
Applied Shortlisted Interviewed Offered
Yes 863 4% 95 4% 91 4% 12 3%
No 22,374 93% 2,409 96% 2,279 96% 462 96%
Not Known 734 3% 14 1% 14 1% 6 1%
Total 23,971 100% 2,518 100% 2,384 100% 480 100%
Table 2.3.1 Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Declared Disability
45
3 Activity/Performance Review
Performance review monitoring is based on the period 2009-2010. Each data set is compared to the expected rating distribution for the overall University. The ratings available are: does not meet expectations, meets expectations, exceeds (1) expectations and exceeds (2) expectations.
Figure 3.1.1 Proportion of staff and their performance rating against the University expected range
Figure 3.1.2 Proportion of staff by age and their performance rating against the University expected range
46
16-25 0.0 90.8 8.6 0.7 0 138 13 1 152
26-35 0.3 90.2 8.2 1.3 4 1353 123 20 1500
36-45 0.2 89.9 7.5 2.4 3 1432 120 38 1593
46-55 0.3 90.7 8.0 1.0 3 1056 93 12 1164
56-65 0.3 94.6 4.3 0.8 2 577 26 5 610
66+ 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 6 0 0 6
Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 3.1.2 Proportion of staff by age and their performance rating against the University expected range
Figure 3.1.3 Proportion of staff by gender and their performance rating against the University expected range
GENDER Below
Female 0.1 91.0 7.3 1.6 2 2630 212 46 2890
Male 0.5 90.5 7.6 1.4 10 1932 163 30 2135
Table 3.1.3 Proportion of staff by gender and their performance rating against the University expected range
47
Figure 3.1.4 Proportion of staff by contracted hours and their performance rating against the University expected range
FULL / PART TIME Below
Expected Ratings 10 80 7 3
Full time 0.3 89.9 8.0 1.8 10 3449 308 68 3835
Part time 0.2 93.5 5.6 0.7 2 1113 67 8 1190
Table 3.1.4 Proportion of staff by contracted hours and their performance rating against the University expected range
Figure 3.1.5 Proportion of staff by Race and their performance rating against the University expected range
48
White 0.2 90.2 8.0 1.6 8 3882 346 70 4306
Asian / Asian British 0.6 95.6 3.9 0.0 1 172 7 0 180
Chinese / Chinese British 1.1 94.1 4.9 0.0 2 174 9 0 185
Black / Black British 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 50 0 0 50
Mixed 0.0 93.5 6.5 0.0 0 29 2 0 31
Other 0.0 96.1 2.6 1.3 0 74 2 1 77
Unknown 0.5 92.3 4.6 2.6 1 181 9 5 196
Table 3.1.5 Proportion of staff by Race and their performance rating against the University expected range
Figure 3.1.6 Proportion of staff by Disability and their performance rating against the University expected range
DISABILITY Below
Disabled 0.0 95.5 4.5 0.0 0 85 4 0 89
Not disabled 0.2 90.7 7.5 1.5 12 4477 371 76 4936
Table 3.1.6 Proportion of staff by Disability and their performance rating against the University expected range
49
Figure 3.1.7 Proportion of staff by position in the salary range and their performance rating against the University expected range
SALARY RANGE ANALYSIS
Expected Ratings 10 80 7 3
Standard Range 0.3 90.7 7.7 1.3 8 2643 225 38 2914
Advancement Range 0.2 90.9 7.1 1.8 4 1916 149 38 2107
Personal/Personal Max Salary 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0 3 1 0 4
Table 3.1.7 Proportion of staff by position in the salary range and their performance rating against the University expected range
50
4 Promotions
The academic promotions process is based on individual merit, rather than organisational change or structural requirements – it is in effect a standard to be met rather than a vacancy to be filled; whereas the regrading process is intended as a correction mechanism where the requirements of a role have changed over time; so although they are grouped together in this report they are not analogous processes.
The promotions monitoring is based on the period 2009-2010 and covers promotions in the academic job family.
Figure 4.1.1 Proportion of approved and declined applications for promotion across all grades
Applications Declined
Applications Approved
Total Applications
Table 4.1.1 Proportion of approved and declined applications for promotion across all grades
51
Figure 4.1.2 Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined by Applicants Grade
Current Grade Applications Declined Applications Approved Grand Total
Clinical Consultant 5 5 10
Clinical Consultant GP 1 1
Clinical Reader 1 1
R&T Extended Level 5 6 8 14
R&T Level 4 14 20 34
R&T Level 4a 2 2
R&T Level 5 20 28 48
R&T Level 6 33 30 63
R&T Off scale 1 1
Grand Total 82 93 175
Table 4.1.2 Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined by Applicants Grade
Figure 4.1.3 Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Age Band
Age Band Applications Declined Applications Approved Grand Total
25-34 10 13 23
35-44 30 45 75
45-54 29 23 52
55-64 12 10 22
65+ 1 2 3
Table 4.1.3 Number of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Age Band
52
Figure 4.1.4 Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Gender
Gender Applications Declined Applications Approved Grand Total
Female 33 36 69
Male 49 57 106
Table 4.1.4 Number of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Gender
53
Figure 4.1.5 Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By contract type
Full/Part Time Applications Declined Applications Approved Grand Total
Full Time 77 89 166
Part Time 5 4 9
Table 4.1.5 Number of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By contract type
Figure 4.1.6 Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Ethic Origin
Ethic Origin Applications Declined Applications Approved Grand Total
White 52 60 112
Black / Black British 2 2
Mixed 2 2
Table 4.1.6 Number of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Ethnic Origin
54
Figure 4.1.7 Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Disability
Disability Applications Declined Applications Approved Grand Total
Unknown 2 2 4
Disabled 2 2
Table 4.1.7 Number of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Disability
55
5 Regrading
The regrading process is available to those staff in the APM and TS job families and is carried out with reference to the Hay analytical job evaluation scheme implemented at the University.
This process recognises changes in an individual’s role that have already occurred.
This year, males are more successful in regrading process.
The very small numbers of declared disabled staff make it very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
Figure 5.1.1 Proportion Regradings for all roles considered
Regraded Not Regraded Applied
Table 5.1.1 Proportion Regradings for all roles considered
56
GENDER Regraded Not Regraded Applied
Male 18 1 19
Female 39 3 42
Total 57 4 61
Table 5.1.2 Number of Regradings by Gender for all grades
Figure 5.1.3 Proportion Regradings by Disability
DISABILITY Regraded Not Regraded Applied
Disabled 1 1 2
Total 57 4 61
57
AGE Regraded Not Regraded Applied
16-24 2 0 2
25-34 16 0 16
35-44 19 2 21
45-54 13 1 14
55-64 7 1 8
65+ 0 0 0
Total 57 4 61
Figure 5.1.5 Proportion Regradings by Ethnic Group
58
Table 5.1.5 Proportion Regradings by Ethnic Group

Documents

Staff Annual Diversity Report 2010