Equality Monitoring Annual Report
2014 - 2015
Sandra Beaufoy
October 2015
Contents
PAGE
SECTION A – WORKFORCE PROFILE - Key Statistics
1.
Introduction
2.
Key Facts and Figures
3.
Gender Profile
3.1
Promoting Gender Equality
3.2
University Gender Profile
3.3
University Gender Comparison
3.4
Faculty Gender Profile
3.5
Conclusion
1
1
3
4
4
6
7
7
12
4.
Disability Profile
12
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
12
13
14
16
16
16
5.
6.
7.
8.
Promoting Disability Equality
University Disability Profile
University Disability Comparison
Faculty Disability Profile
Disabled Staff by Disability Types
Conclusion
BME Profile
18
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
18
19
20
20
21
23
Promoting Race and Ethnicity Equality
University BME Profile
University BME Comparison
Faculty BME Profile
University Ethnicity Profile
Conclusion
Age Profile
23
6.1
6.2
6.3
23
24
25
Promotion of Age Equality
University Age Profile
Conclusion
Turnover Profile
25
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
25
28
30
30
32
University Staff Turnover by Faculty
Female Staff Turnover by Faculty
Disabled Staff Turnover by Faculty
BME Staff Turnover by Faculty
Conclusion
Final Conclusion for Workforce Profile Statistics
32
SECTION B – RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION - Key Statistics
33
B1.1
B1.2
B1.3
B1.4
References
Recruitment by Gender
Recruitment by Disability
Recruitment by Ethnicity
Recruitment Conclusion
34
34
35
35
39
WORKFORCE PROFILE
KEY STATISTICS
Total Number of Staff: 5,660, with 4,418 working on indefinite contracts and 1,242
working on fixed-term contracts.
The gender split among staff is Males : 48.5% ; Females : 51.5%.
The percentage of females in academic positions is 27.8% (just over half of the
average in the HE sector – 44.5%). Only 19.1% of females are professors
The number of disabled staff employed remains static, representing 2% of female
staff and 1.5% of male staff declaring a disability (which is slightly below the sector
average of 3.9%)
A large proportion of staff have chosen not to disclose a disability (5.2% on average)
The University employs 721 employees with a BME background which is equivalent
to 12.8% of the total employee population.
Only 8.0% of BME staff are professors.
The majority of employees are between 26 and 55 years (1538 in 26-35 yrs; 1469 in
36 to 45 yrs; 1450 in 46 to 55 yrs.
1
SECTION A: WORKFORCE PROFILE
1. Introduction
The Equality Monitoring Annual Report 2015, provides information on how the University of
Warwick is meeting its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The report is published with
regard to the specific duty, under the Act, to publish equality information to demonstrate
compliance with the three aims of the Equality Duty. As an employer, education provider and public
body the University is committed to tackling discrimination and providing equal opportunities for
everybody and strives to create a positive working environment of mutual respect and dignity.
Under the Equality Act 2010 the University has responsibility for carrying out its activities with
respect to such facets as:
-
Elimination of unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct
prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
Advancement of equality of opportunity between people from different groups, with or
without protected characteristics;
Foster good relations between people from different groups
The report presents statistical data applied in relation to the following protected characteristics:
Gender; Disability; Ethnicity and Age. Data is provided in tabular and graphical format and any
trends identified, which provide contextualisation and suggestions of possible recommendations for
future improvements. Two new data collection sets, Religion and Belief and Sexual Orientation,
have recently started to be collected for staff (September 2015). Therefore the data on these two
data sets is in its infancy, but it is hoped, moving forward, that more in-depth reports will be
available from 2015/16 onwards. Both collection sets are now included in the personal monitoring
form for new members of staff and was introduced to existing staff as part of the data cleansing
exercise which took place in September 2015. Information on staff turnover and recruitment and
selection is also included in this report.
At the census date of 01 September 2015, there were 5,660 employees working for the University.
The data was taken from the University HR data base and has been broken down into 6 staff
categories: Academic (teaching and research); Research only staff; Teaching only staff; Clinical1;
Levels 1a-5 support staff; Levels 6-9 support staff and Other2. The report covers the following
faculties and service groups:
 Faculty of Arts
 Faculty of Medicine
 Faculty of Science
 Faculty of Social Sciences
 Administration
 Campus and Commercial Services Group (CCSG)
1
The Clinical staff category are members of staff on clinical terms and conditions (separate to Academic terms and
conditions). This category is predominantly made up of Levels 7, 8 and 9.
Here and further in the report category ‘Other’ represents staff not working on Warwick Terms and Conditions (e.g.
TUPE transfer).
2
2
2.
Key Facts and Figures
As of 01 September 2015 the profile of staff categories at Warwick is demonstrated in Figure 1. The
overall number of employees is 5,660. The largest proportion of staff are employed in support roles,
both in Levels 1a-5 (2,262 employees) and Levels 6-9 (1,1253 employees).
Distribution of the total number of employees
26
1,009
2,262
801
1,125
359
78
Academic
Research only staff
Teaching only staff
Clinical
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
Other
Figure 1: Distribution of the total number of employees
According to the data, the majority of employees are working on an indefinite contract basis (Figure
2). Generally, part-time employment is less prevalent with the exception of staff category Levels 1a5, where almost half work part-time (Table 1). Research only staff work mainly on fixed term
contracts and are predominantly full-time, although the number of research staff working part-time
has risen slightly from 84 in 2013/14 to 103 in 2014/15. Full-time indefinite employment is
predominant for Academic staff, Levels 6-9 and Levels 1a-5 support staff.
Figure 2: Distribution between fixed-term and indefinite employees
Distribution of Fixed Term and Indefinite Contracts
1,242
4,418
Fixed Term
3
Indefinite Contracts
Figures are given by headcount, unless otherwise stated.
3
Table 1: University General Employee Working Pattern Profile
Academic
Research
only staff
Total Headcount
Teaching
only staff
Clinical
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
Levels 1a - 5
support staff
Other
TOTAL
Full
Time
Fixed Term
29
594
67
15
102
132
19
948
Indefinite
894
80
181
30
809
1,181
7
3,182
Part
Time
Fixed Term
20
103
53
13
37
58
294
Indefinite
66
24
58
20
177
891
1,236
1,009
801
359
78
1,033
2,262
TOTAL
26
5,660
As stated previously the largest single category of employees is in Levels 1a-5 support roles, who
work mainly on indefinite contracts in both full and part-time capacities. Levels 6-9 support staff
also work mainly on indefinite contracts, with 809 staff working full-time and 177 part-time.
Academic staff are predominantly full-time and on indefinite contracts – 894 out of a total count of
1,009. In contrast, most research only staff have fixed-term contracts, with 594 working full-time
and 103 part-time, out of a total of 801 employees. This is predominantly because of the nature of
the funding of their contracts through Research Councils. Teaching only staff working full-time on
indefinite contracts number at 181 out of total 359 staff, whereas those working part-time are
virtually equally split between fixed term and indefinite contracts (53:58) - (Table 1).
There has been a slight increase in the staff population employed by the University since 2013 see below:
5,350 in 2013
5,660 in 2015
5,630 in 2014
According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (2013/14)4, there are twice as many people
working full-time (263,055) as part-time (132,725) in the sector. 47.2% of full-time staff and 66.9%
of part-time staff were female in 2013, showing a slight increase in the proportion of full-time
female staff and a slight decrease in the proportion of part-time female staff from 2012 (47.1% and
67.3% respectively).
3. Gender profile
3.1 Promoting Gender Equality
The ECU Equality in Higher Education Statistical Report (2014) declares that in 2012/13, 53.9% of
staff working in UK higher education institutions were women. The increase in the proportion of
female staff has chiefly occurred within academic staff. While men still constitute the majority of
academic staff, the proportion of academic female staff has steadily increased from 40.0% in 2003/4
4
The latest data provided by Higher Education Statistics Agency (2015) is dated 2013-2014.
4
to 44.5% in 2012/13. The gender profile of professional and support staff, in contrast, has remained
largely static, staying within 0.4% of 2003/4 levels in the last ten years, currently 62.6% female and
37.4% male.
The University encourages and supports women’s employment across all categories of roles,
ensuring that policies and processes are fair and transparent, whilst working hard to ensure equality
of pay. During the equal pay review in 2011, an analysis of the gender pay disparities for professorial
staff was compared to Russell Group market data for the same mix of academic disciplines as
represented at Warwick. This indicated that Warwick is comparable to other Russell Group
universities. Warwick’s next equal pay review is scheduled for during the Autumn term 2015, so
will be reported on in the report for 2016. Internal benchmarking with Russell Group and other
comparators suggests that the gender pay gap at Warwick has fallen relative to the sector.
Warwick is one of only five institutions that holds an Athena SWAN Silver Institutional award and
only one of three institutions where all of its STEMM departments hold at least a Bronze Athena
SWAN award. The achievement of these awards demonstrates the University’s commitment to the
Charter’s values and principals. Warwick Business School also achieved a Bronze award in the pilot
of the Gender Equality Charter Mark (GEM) in 2013/14. GEM has now been amalgamated into the
Athena SWAN Charter and therefore Arts and Social Science departments can apply for Athena
awards with effect from November 2015. An Athena Steering Group, now chaired by the Pro-Vice
Chancellor for People and Public Engagement was established in 2010, and continues to meet on a
termly basis. This group works in partnership with the University’s Athena Network Group (which
has representation from all departments working towards an Athena award, as well as central
administrative staff). It is Warwick’s strategy that any improvement in policies and processes is of
benefit not only to women but to all employees.
Warwick has implemented a number of initiatives that have helped to retain and support women
progress their academic careers. In January 2015, a Warwick Academic Returners Fellowship was
launched to assist academics returning from periods of maternity/adoption/extended
paternity/long term parental leave. The Fellowship essentially buys out teaching and administrative
duties for those on full academic contracts, to allow the returners to fully concentrate on their
research work. Currently there are six members of academic staff (5 females and 1 male who is on
adoption leave) that have been awarded Fellowships. More information on the Fellowships can be
found at:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/equalops/maternity/.
On 5 April 2015, Government introduced a Shared Parental Leave scheme which enables parents to
share a period of leave and pay in the 52 weeks immediately following the birth or adoption of their
child, whatever the identity of their employer. This scheme enables the care of the child to be split
between both parents. More information on this scheme can be found at:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/humanresources/newpolicies/shared_parental_leave/.
In addition the University provides a variety of support for employees returning from maternity/
adoption/paternity leave, such as the Warwick Conference Care Fund which assists with the
financial costs incurred by staff with caring responsibilities to attend conferences and workshops.
More information on this fund can be found at:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/equalops/athena/warwickconferencesupportawards/.
The University Nursery has also extended their very successful Summer Play Scheme for primary
school aged children to Easter (available for children aged 5-11). The aim of the Summer Scheme is
to offer an inspiring range of educational, cultural and sporting activities to challenge, entertain and
5
enthuse; develop children’s knowledge and skills and utilise the fantastic resources available on
campus. The diverse programme contains a balance of physical and creative/intellectual activities
every day, as well as plenty of time for both structured, instructor-led sessions and free play. The
summer scheme is available for all staff, who are working parents, and have school aged children.
The Learning and Development Centre offers a mentoring scheme for returning parents helping
them to cope with balancing work responsibilities with family life, and there is also a Staff Network
Group for Working Parents, that meets termly.
3.2 University Gender Profile
The University’s total staff population is fairly evenly balanced between female and male staff.
Figure 3 shows the split - 2745 male and 2915 female employees, 48.5% and 51.5% respectively
(Table 2). However as can be seen in Table 2, the highest levels of employment are in support roles
(Levels 1a to 5) – 772 males (34.1%) and 1,490 females (65.9%).
General gender representation
48.5%
51.5%
Male
Female
Figure 3: General Gender Representation
Table 2: University Gender Profile on 01/09/2015
Staff Category
Total Headcount
No. Male
% Male
No. Female
% Female
Academic
1,009
728
72.2%
281
27.8%
Research only staff
801
487
60.8%
314
39.2%
Teaching only staff
359
187
52.1%
172
47.9%
Clinical
78
48
61.5%
30
38.5%
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
1,125
505
44.9%
620
55.1%
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
2,262
772
34.1%
1,490
65.9%
26
18
69.2%
8
30.8%
Overall - Summary
Other
5660
2745
48.5%
2915
51.5%
Total for previous year
5630
2667
47.4%
2963
52.6%
6
3.3 University Gender Comparison
The proportion of each gender varies by staff category. There are a higher number of female
employees in support roles with 55.1% for Levels 6-9 and 65.9% for Levels 1a-5 staff. Academic
roles together with Clinical remain prevalent with males – 72.2 % and 61.5%, with only 19.1% female
professors. The data shows that the proportion of academic male staff is remaining fairly static from
72.4% in previous years to 72.2 % in 2015. All other categories remain relatively equal (Table 2,
Figure 4).
Gender Distribution among Different Employee
Categories
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Academic Research Teaching
only staff only staff
Clinical Levels 6 to Levels 1a
9 support
to 5
staff
support
staff
% Male
Other
Overall Summary
% Female
Figure 4: Gender distribution among different employee categories.
The number of female employees has dropped slightly in 2015 to 2,915 compared to 2014 (2,963),
however the number of males has increased to 2,745 from 2,667 in 2014.
As in previous years, males predominated in full academic roles – approximately two and half times
more than females. However, the number of females in academic positions has started to increase
very gradually from 257 in 2012 to 281 in 2015 (Table 3). The number of females in academic
positions at Level 9 has fallen very slightly in all Faculties this year with the exception of the Faculty
of Arts, where the increase is by one FTE post. However the number of females in academic
positions at Level 8 has increased in all Faculties with the exception of Warwick Medical School,
where the decrease is by one FTE post.
3.4 Faculty Gender Profile
Despite the figures reported above, the proportion of academic female roles in the Faculty of
Science continues to be slightly lower compared to the other faculties. As in previous years this
7
continues to be a national trend, as can be seen in the ECU Equality in Higher Education: Statistical
Report 2014, which reports that the majority of female academic staff worked in non-STEM subject
areas (51.0%). The opposite was true for male academic staff, 57.4% of whom worked in STEM
subject areas.
There remains a relatively high proportion of females employed on research only roles, Faculty of
Social Sciences (60.0%), Faculty of Arts (52.9%), Warwick Medical School (58.9%) and
Administration* (63.6%) (Table 4).
* Due to the organisational system of the University, certain teaching departments fall into
Administration, such as: Centre for Life Long Learning, Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning,
Institute for Advanced Study and the Language Centre. Therefore, Administration includes academic
employees from those departments/centres.
Proportion of academic roles occupied by females
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Faculty of Arts
Academic % Female
Faculty of Science
Faculty of Social Sciences Warwick Medical School
Research only staff % Female
Teaching only staff % Female
Figure 5: Proportion of academic roles occupied by females
8
Table 3: University Gender Comparison over time
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Academic
685
270
679
268
664
268
642
265
617
261
646
257
720
279
733
280
728
281
Research only staff
324
270
344
290
388
289
386
290
354
256
319
251
390
279
457
295
487
316
Teaching only staff
82
94
91
95
96
91
99
92
103
103
124
114
144
134
153
159
187
172
Clinical
Levels 6 to 9 support
staff
Levels 1a to 5 support
staff
Other
Summary
50
16
50
20
56
23
52
30
59
31
64
31
62
34
61
33
48
30
398
403
394
423
398
455
385
469
391
503
402
541
442
592
482
631
506
620
661
1,481
655
1,518
671
1,479
659
1,439
656
1,430
699
1,462
732
1,530
767
1,558
772
1,490
76
63
62
55
38
29
28
25
15
19
16
19
11
9
14
8
18
8
2,276
2,597
2,275
2,669
2,311
2,634
2,251
2,610
2,195
2,603
2,270
2,675
2,501
2,857
2,667
2,964
2,746
2,917
Figure 6: University Gender Comparison
University Gender Comparison
3,500
3,000
Academic
2,500
Research only staff
2,000
Teaching only staff
1,500
Clinical
1,000
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
500
Other
0
M
F
2007
M
F
2008
M
F
2009
M
F
2010
M
F
2011
M
F
2012
9
M
F
2013
M
F
2014
M
F
2015
Summary
The data shows that the highest proportion of females roles in almost all the faculties are in Levels
1a-5 (65.9%) followed by Levels 6-9 support staff (55.1%). Teaching only staff are represented by
over 70% of females in the Faculty of Arts, followed closely by Warwick Medical School (66.7%). The
category ‘Other’ is represented only in Administration (85.7%), Warwick Medical School (50%), CCSG
(14.3%), however it should be noted that the actual numbers in these categories are low. The lowest
represented category is the Academic Levels 7, 8, and 9 with way below 50 % across each faculty
(Table 4).
The percentage of females in Academic positions is 27.8% (Table 2), which is just over half the
average in the market – 44.5% (Equality Challenge Unit, 2014). The ECU Equality in Higher
Education: Statistical Report 20145 states that the increase in the proportion of female staff has
chiefly occurred within academic staff. While men still constitute the majority of academic staff,
the proportion of academic female staff has steadily increased from 40.0% in 2003/4 to 44.5% in
2011/12.
Teaching only positions have dropped slightly with a figure with 47.9%, compared to 51.0% in 2014,
whereas Research only positions have remained static 39.2% for both 2014 and 2015. The
proportion of women in support roles as it has been already mentioned is high presenting 55.1% in
Levels 6-9 and 65.9% in Levels 1a-5. The faculties and service departments with most representation
of female employees are: Warwick Medical School – 63.0%, Administration – 69.2% and the Faculty
of Arts with 54.8% (Table 4).
Faculty Gender Profiles: Females
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Academic Academic Academic Research
Level 9
Level 8
Level 7
only
Teaching
only
Clinical
Levels 6 to Levels 1a to
9 support 5 support
staff
staff
Faculty of Arts
Faculty of Science
Faculty of Social Sciences
Warwick Medical School
Administration
CCSG
Other
Figure 7: Faculty Gender Profile: Female
5
The ECU Statistical Report determines that the academic employment function may be teaching, research, teaching
and research or neither teaching nor research (where an academic professional has taken up a senior administrative
responsibility but there is no change to the academic function in their contract of employment).
10
Table 4: Detailed Faculty Gender Profile
19
30.6%
40
51.3%
10
45.5%
18
52.9%
38
70.4%
Faculty of Science
20
11.8%
38
23.2%
13
17.8%
133
26.9%
39
37.1%
Faculty of Social
Sciences
32
20.5%
55
39.9%
32
36.0%
63
60.0%
71
43.8%
Warwick Medical
School
8
34.8%
6
37.5%
6
50.0%
86
58.9%
14
66.7%
Administration
0
0.0%
2
50.0%
14
63.6%
10
58.8%
0
30
0.0%
39.0%
CCSG
Summary
79
19.1%
141
35.3%
61
31.1%
314
39.2%
172
47.9%
11
30
38.5%
13
72.2%
27
81.8%
66
38.6%
171
59.4%
114
69.9%
156
87.2%
56
80.0%
93
85.3%
1
283
66.3%
346
72.8%
88
31.9%
697
620
55.1%
1,490
Summary
Total
Headcount
% Female
Other
No. Female
% Female
% Female
Levels 1a to 5
support staff
No. Female
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
No. Female
% Female
% Female
Faculty of Arts
Clinical
No. Female
Teaching Only
No. Female
% Female
Research
Only
No. Female
% Female
% Female
Academic
Level 7
No. Female
Academic
Level 8
No. Female
% Female
No. Female
Academic
Level 9
301
54.8%
1,475
32.5%
992
52.7%
50.0%
476
63.0%
6
85.7%
955
69.2%
59.2%
1
14.3%
1,461
53.8%
65.9%
8
30.8%
5,660
51.5%
0
0.0%
3.5.
Conclusion
Whilst the University has an overall positive balance between male and female employees, there is
still an under-representation of females amongst Academic staff, and this year has seen a slight drop
in the number of female professors (84 in 2014 with a drop to 79 in 2015 - 19.1%) this is across all
Faculties, with the exception of the Faculty of Arts. However there has been an increase in the
number of female academics in both Levels 8 (141 in 2015 – 137 in 2014) and Level 7 (61 in 2015 –
59 in 2014). Overall females continue to be widely presented in support roles.
Taking into consideration the fact that many positions within the University could be occupied by
people from the local community, it is rational to look into the gender split in Coventry. According
to the 2011 Census, the population in Coventry is equally divided (49.7% males; 50.3% females).
However The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published their updated mid-year population
estimates on 25th June 2015; and these estimates suggest that Coventry has 337,400 people living
in the City. This is 7,600 more people than in 2013 when the population was estimated to be
329,800. This is an increase of 2.3%, compared to the England average of 0.8%. Between June 2013
and June 2014 Coventry’s population was growing at the 6th fastest rate out of all councils in Great
Britain. The main factors causing population growth in Coventry (other than the student population)
are international migration and the number of births in the City. It is believed that the growth of
the City’s two Universities has been a major factor in the recent population growth.
The ECU Equality in Higher Education: Statistical Report 2014 reported that in both employment
activities, women comprised the majority of part-time staff, making up 79.5% of part-time
professional and support staff and 54.7% of part-time academic staff. The majority of all professors
were men (78.3%). This was true across STEM and non-STEM subject areas and full-and part-time
employment. This gender difference was most notable among full-time professors working in STEM
subject areas, where 82.8% were men. Women comprised the majority of part-time nonprofessorial staff within both STEM and non-STEM subject areas (56.8% and 56.1% respectively).
Support roles like Levels 1a-5 are highly likely to be occupied by members of the local population,
working part time.
4.
Disability Profile
4.1 Promoting Disability Equality
The University acknowledges the equality of opportunity including job opportunities for disabled
people and attempts to ensure that the appropriate adjustments are in place with regards to
potential staff attending for interview, as well as striving to ensure that all its facilities are accessible.
In September 2015, a new Disability Framework has been launched to assist the employee and their
line manager (in conjunction with Occupational Health) to discuss, record and monitor any
reasonable adjustment that may be required to support the employee. It is also hoped that because
this resource is now in place that it will encourage more employees to disclose their disabilities. The
Framework will:
12
 Encourage disclosure of disabilities by creating a culture of support and inclusiveness.
 Support the individual, line manager and HR adviser to work together to ensure that
appropriate and ‘fit for purpose’ reasonable adjustments are in place to enable the
member of staff work to their full potential.
The Disability Framework is in its infancy, but will be monitored and reviewed after six months to
determine if staff are finding it useful. More information on the Framework can be found at:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/equalops/disability/framework/
University data indicates that the number of disabled staff employed is remaining static,
representing 2.0% of female staff declaring a disability and 1.5% of male staff declaring a disability
(Table 5). However this is still below the proportion of disabled staff employed on average
nationally, which is 3.9% (Equality Challenge Unit, 2014).
According to the Equality Challenge Unit (2014), nationally, between 2011/12 and 2012/13 the
proportion of staff disclosing as disabled increased by 0.5 percentage points. This has been the
largest annual increase since 2003/04 with the exception of the 2007/08 to 2008/09 period, (an
increase of 0.9 percentage points). The report states that 3.4% of academic staff and 4.5% of
professional and support staff disclosed as disabled in 2012/13. These proportions have almost
doubled from the 2003/04 figures of 1.8% and 2.4% respectively. 82.6% of full-time disabled
academic staff were on indefinite contracts compared with 74.6% of full-time non-disabled
academic staff, a difference of 8.0%.
4.2 University Disability Profile
Disabled staff are represented across all employee categories. According to the data, there is a
greater proportion of females with reported disclosed disabilities than men – 2.0% and 1.5%
respectively.
Females with disabilities are most pronounced amongst the Levels 1a-5 (2.7%), followed by support
staff in Levels 6-9 (2.0%), and Research only staff (1.9%). The ‘Other’ category has 3.8% of disabled
male employees, which is due to the low numbers of staff in that category. Disabled male staff are
represented relatively equally among the other categories with the average percentage of 1.3%, the
highest being 1.8% in Levels 1a-5 and 1.4% in Levels 6-9 (Table 5).
In general, the proportion of disabled female employees decreased slightly in comparison to the
previous year (2.1% to 2.0%), whereas the proportion of disabled males remained static at 1.5%
(Table 5). However numbers for disabled staff are low compared to the size of the workforce, but
a contributory factor for this may be low rates of disclosure.
13
Table 5: University Disability Profile
Staff Category
4.3
Total
Headcount
Academic
1,009
No. Male
Declared
Disabled
10
% Male
declared
disabled
1.0%
No. Female
declared
disabled
9
% Female
declared
disabled
0.9%
Research only staff
801
10
1.2%
15
1.9%
Teaching only staff
359
5
1.4%
6
1.7%
Clinical
78
0
0.0%
1
1.3%
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
1,125
16
1.4%
22
2.0%
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
2,262
41
1.8%
61
2.7%
Other
26
1
3.8%
0
0.0%
Overall - Summary
5660
83
1.5%
114
2.0%
Total for previous year
5630
85
1.5%
118
2.1%
University Disability Comparison
Over the period from 2007 to 2015 an increase has occurred in the number of both male and female
disabled staff, progressing from 71 and 94 in 2007 to 83 and 114 respectively in 2015 (Table 6). The
number of women with reported disabilities was constantly about 1.5 times higher. According to
the data, during this time the majority of disabled staff have been employed in support roles,
predominantly in Levels 1a-5. There is a fairly stable proportion of disabled staff in the Academic
category. The Research and Teaching only categories show constant fluctuation in numbers of
disabled employees, but this is reflected by the fixed term contracts the majority may be employed
on (Table 6, Figure 8).
Table 6: University Disability Distribution among different categories over time
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
F
M
F
M
2015
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
12
11
13
11
13
10
11
11
9
12
9
12
9
13
8
10
9
Research only
staff
Teaching only
staff
Clinical
6
7
7
8
10
9
9
10
9
7
4
9
7
8
12
13
10
15
4
1
5
2
6
3
6
3
5
2
4
3
4
6
4
8
5
6
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
1
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
Levels 1a to 5
support staff
Other
11
12
9
15
9
14
9
14
10
15
11
12
14
15
17
20
16
22
35
61
34
65
37
65
36
63
38
62
36
70
34
64
37
67
41
61
4
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
Summary
71
94
69
104
77
105
74
102
75
97
69
105
73
104
85
118
83
114
14
M
2014
11
Academic
F
2013
F
M
F
University Disability Distribution among Different Categories over
time
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
M
F
M
2007
F
2008
M
F
2009
Academic
Clinical
M
F
M
2010
F
M
2011
F
M
2012
F
2013
Research only staff
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
M
F
M
2014
F
2015
Teaching only staff
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
Figure 8: University Disability Distribution among different categories over time
The number of disabled staff steadily rose from 2007 from 165, then after a small decline in 2010/11,
started to rise again and in 2014 hit the highest figure to date of 203 members of staff with a
disclosed disability, however this has dropped again to 197 in 2015 (Table 7). The data shows a
relatively large proportion of employees (5.2% on average) who have not disclosed their disability
status. The number of staff choosing not to disclose a disability had been reducing until 2013 when
it started to rise again (299), peaking in 2014 with 321, but dropping slightly again this year to 299
(Table 7, Figure 9).
Table 7: University Disability Comparison over time.
2007
Disabled
No known disability
Not disclosed
Summary
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
165
173
182
176
172
174
177
203
197
4,237
4,408
4,490
4,466
4,434
4,600
4,882
5,107
5,167
471
363
273
219
192
171
299
321
299
4,873
4,944
4,945
4,861
4,798
4,945
5,358
5,631
5,663
Figure 9: University Disability Comparison
University Disability Comparison over time
6,000
5,000
4,000
Not disclosed
3,000
No known disability
Disabled
2,000
1,000
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
15
2013
2014
2015
4.4 Faculty Disability Profile
Nationally, the majority of disabled staff work in non-STEM departments (52.6%). In comparison,
the majority of non-disabled staff work in STEM departments (53.9%). A lower proportion of
professors disclosed as disabled (2.7%) than academic staff in non-professorial roles (3.4%).
However a higher proportion of both professors and non-professors in non-STEM areas disclosed as
disabled than in STEM areas. 3.1% of non-STEM professors and 3.9% of non-STEM non-professors
were disabled, compared with a 2.4% of STEM professors and 3.0% of STEM non-professors
(Equality Challenge Unit, 2014).
University data shows that faculties have representation of disabled employees across different
categories. The highest number of disabled staff work in Administration – 4.5%, followed by CCSG
and the Faculty of Arts 4.1% and 4.0% respectively (Table 8 and Figure 11).
4.5 Disabled Staff by Disability Types
A long standing illness or health condition continues to be the most presented type of disability (66
people (65 in 2014)). There are also a number of employees with a specific learning difficulty – 33
people (from 32 in 2014); and with physical impairment or mobility issues - 24 people. There is also
a proportion of staff with disabilities unspecified in the list- 24 people. According to the data, there
has been a steady increase in the number of employees with certain disability types, whereas some
other disability types do not experience growth in numbers, for instance deaf or serious hearing
impairment, blind or a serious visual impairment uncorrected by glasses (Table 9, Figure 10). The
dramatic increase in the number of employees with specific learning difficulties should be
emphasised – from 9 to 33 within 9 years. That is in line with the Equality Challenge Unit (2014)
statistics, reporting 17.4% of staff with this disability type, and also noting that impairment types
most commonly reported among both academic and professional and support staff were: longstanding illness or health condition; specific learning difficulty; and an impairment other than those
listed.
Mental health conditions are one of the widespread disabilities. According to statistics, 1 out of 4
people around the UK experience some kind of mental health problem in the course of a year
(Mental Health Foundation, 2015). Only 19 members of staff at Warwick have disclosed that they
have a mental health condition, this is way below the national. Being greatly below the average
could indicate the continuing unwillingness of employees to disclose a mental health condition,
because of the stigma around mental health.
4.6 Conclusion
Overall, it could be inferred that there has been a decline in the proportion of disabled employees
with the increase in the general staff head count. The number of staff disclosing their disability
status has improved slightly since 2014 when 320 members of staff chose not to disclose as opposed
to 296 in 2015. It is hoped that this will improve further once the data has been collated after the
data cleansing exercise in September 2015 as a message accompanied the data exercise to
encourage disability disclosures to ensure the right support for the individual could be put in place.
According to Equality Challenge Unit (2014), 3.3% of staff in the sector decided not to disclose and
therefore their disability status is classed as unknown. Of staff who did declare their disability
status, only 3.9% declared that they were disabled.
16
Table 8: Detailed Faculty Disability Profile on 01/09/2015
Administration
0
0.00%
Faculty of Arts
8
Faculty of Science
4
Faculty of Social
Sciences
CCSG
7
Warwick Medical
School
0
0.00%
3
2.05%
2
9.52%
1
19
1.9%
25
3.1%
11
3.1%
1
Summary
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
4.94%
3
8.82%
0
0.00%
0.99%
12
2.43%
2
1.90%
1.83%
7
6.67%
7
4.32%
0
20
4.68%
0
3
23
4.84%
0.00%
1
3.03%
1.75%
11
3.82%
8
4.91%
8
4.47%
7
2.54%
53
4.50%
0
1.30%
0
0.00%
6
5.50%
1.3%
38
3.4%
102
4.5%
0.00%
Table 9. University Disability Comparison by Disability Types
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2013
2014
4,237
4,408
4,490
4,466
4,434
4,600
4,882
5,107
2
9
2
12
2
12
2
14
2
15
2
18
2
24
2
2
A specific learning difficulty
32
33
General learning disability
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
4
2
3
2
No known disability
Two or more impairments and/or disabling medical conditions
A social/communication impairment
A long standing illness or health condition
2012
1
2015
5,167
54
60
66
69
61
61
60
65
66
8
9
10
10
10
13
14
20
19
A physical impairment or mobility issues
19
20
21
23
23
24
22
26
24
Deaf or serious hearing impairment
14
16
17
17
20
18
18
18
17
A mental health condition
Blind or a serious visual impairment uncorrected by glasses
A disability, impairment or medical condition that is not listed above
Question not answered
Summary
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
55
50
50
37
36
34
29
27
24
469
361
271
217
190
169
297
320
296
4,873
4,944
4,945
4,861
4,798
4,945
5,358
5,630
5,660
17
Summary
Total Headcount
% Declared
disabled
No.declared
disabled
Other
% Declared
disabled
No.declared
disabled
Levels 1a to 5
support staff
% Declared
disabled
No.declared
disabled
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
% Declared
disabled
No.declared
disabled
Clinical
% Declared
disabled
% Declared
disabled
Teaching only staff
No.declared
disabled
Research only staff
No.declared
disabled
% Declared
disabled
No.declared
disabled
Academic
0
0.00%
955
4.5%
301
4.0%
1
10.00%
1,475
2.2%
992
3.7%
0.00%
1,461
4.1%
0
0.00%
476
2.5%
1
3.8%
5,660
3.5%
Figure 10 University Disability Comparison by Disability Types
University Disability Comparison by Disability Types
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007
5
5.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
BME Profile
Promoting Race and Ethnicity Equality
The University employs 721 employees with BME background (691 in 2014) which is equivalent to
12.8% of the total employee population. This is the highest proportion of BME employees that the
University has employed to date and is substantially above the Higher Education sector average of
8.9% BME employees in England and above the average of 7.8% of BME employed around the UK
(ECU, 2014). Between 2003/04 and 2012/13, the proportion of staff who were UK white decreased
among both academic and professional and support staff (by 7.5 and 5.0 percentage points,
respectively). The proportion of white staff is markedly higher among UK national employees
showing 92.2%, whereas the University presents a smaller figure of 79.2%. There are 1.4% black
staff, 7.0% Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and other Asian background) and 2.3% Chinese
employees.
The support staff population is predominately recruited from the local population and currently
stands at 373 BME employees. Equality Challenge Unit (2014) reported that of known ethnicity,
there was a notably higher proportion of BME staff among non-UK staff (28.6%) than UK staff (7.8%).
However, between 2003/04 and 2012/13, the proportion of staff who were UK BME increased from
4.8% to 6.5%. In this same period, the proportion of staff who were non-UK BME increased from
3.8% to 4.9%, a difference of 1.1%. The increase in the proportion of staff who were UK BME was
more pronounced among professional and support staff (2.3 increase in percentage points from
2003/04 to 2012/13) than among academic staff (1.1 increase in percentage points in the same time
period). In contrast, the proportion of academic staff who were non-UK BME rose by 1.3 percentage
points, compared with 0.6% among professional and support staff.
18
According to Coventry City Council (June, 2015), the proportion of the BME community in the area
is 26.2% with the highest share of citizens with Asian or Asian British background – 16.3%. That
might be the reason for the higher proportion of this minority in the University staff population. At
the same time, Black or Black British minority is represented in the area with 5.6% and Chinese being
the least represented with 1.7%.
The University recruits an increasing proportion of its Academic staff from the international market.
As the Equality Challenge Unit (2014) reports, there are 5.9% of UK BME academics and 6.9% of nonUK employed in general, showing potential for further development within University.
5.2 University BME Profile
BME staff are represented across different employee categories, presenting growth in numbers in
recent years. The proportion between males and females of BME background – 6.5% and 6.3%
respectively – goes in line with the general gender representation (Section 3.2). However, men are
evenly distributed among different staff categories, whereas women are rather concentrated in
certain ones. The proportion of females is higher in Levels 1a-5 support staff (8.6%) and ‘Other’
category (7.7%), whereas the academic related categories and particularly Clinical (16.7%) and
research only staff category (14.7%) have higher proportions of BME males (Table 10).
Table10: University BME Profile on 01/09/2015
Staff Category
Total Headcount
Academic
1,009
No. Male
BME
81
% Male BME
8.0%
No. Female
BME
40
% Female
BME
4.0%
Research only staff
801
118
14.7%
53
6.6%
Teaching only staff
359
23
6.4%
14
3.9%
Clinical
78
13
16.7%
6
7.7%
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
1,125
47
4.2%
46
4.1%
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
2,262
85
3.8%
195
8.6%
Other
26
1
3.8%
2
7.7%
Overall - Summary
5660
368
6.5%
353
6.3%
Total for previous year
5630
338
6.0%
349
6.3%
Figure 11: University BME Profile
University BME Profile
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Academic
Research only Teaching only
staff
staff
% Male BME
Clinical
Levels 6 to 9 Levels 1a to 5
support staff support staff
% Female BME
19
Other
5.3 University BME Comparison
The number of BME employees has been growing constantly with time, showing a prevalence of
females over males (Table 11). However, the distribution of the male-female staff follows the
general trend described in Section 3.3. The majority of BME females are occupied in support roles
in Levels 1a-5 (195 staff), and to a lesser extent presented in research and academic categories (54
and 40 staff respectively), whereas the proportion of BME males has risen slightly in the same
categories (Table 11, Figure 12).
The growth in numbers is particularly pronounced amongst academic staff, with the number of BME
academics increasing from 82 (55 males and 27 females) in 2007 to 121 (81 males and 40 females)
in 2015. Although the number almost doubled, in general there are still twice as many males as
females in academic positions. The most common positions for BME staff still remain in roles at
Levels 1a-5.
5.4 Faculty BME Profile
A large proportion of BME staff are located in Warwick Medical School with 21.0%, followed by the
Faculty of Science with 14.7% and CCSG with 12.6% (Table 12). The Faculty of Science shows 100%
of Clinical BME staff, however this only equates to 1 person.
The Faculty of Arts has the lowest proportion of BME staff with only 7.3%. The senior administrative
roles (Levels 6-9) occupied by BME are accounted for 8.3% (Table 12). The biggest proportion of
BME is in academic Level 7 (19.4%), being represented in all faculties. The lowest BME
representative proportion is in Professorial roles with only 8.0% overall (Table 13).
The Equality Challenge Unit (2014) report that the proportion of black academics who are professors
(4.0%) is lower than any other ethnic group. In contrast, 13.5% of UK Chinese and 13.0% of UK other
ethnicity academic staff were professors. The proportion of black non-UK academic staff who are
professors (2.1%) is also lower than for any other ethnic group. There are also very few BME staff
in higher senior contract levels above professor level. For example, only 2.6% of UK deputy/provice chancellors and none of the 140 UK Heads of Institutions are BME.
Table 11: University BME Comparison
2007
M
2008
F
M
2009
F
M
2010
F
M
2011
F
M
2012
F
M
2013
F
M
2014
F
M
2015
F
M
F
Academic
55
27
61
28
62
33
63
34
59
37
72
34
80
43
76
40
81
40
Research
only staff
Teaching
only staff
Clinical
62
42
72
49
85
44
83
40
74
42
66
42
82
46
104
47
118
54
4
4
7
5
7
8
9
10
11
8
12
10
14
13
17
12
23
14
14
1
12
5
18
6
17
6
21
6
22
6
20
8
18
8
13
6
Levels 6 to
9 support
staff
Levels 1a
to 5
support
staff
Other
27
16
23
20
29
24
24
28
24
30
27
35
28
38
38
45
47
46
44
163
57
176
60
171
64
173
70
168
81
182
85
200
84
199
85
195
9
7
8
8
6
6
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
2
Summary
215
260
240
291
267
292
261
293
259
293
280
311
309
350
338
353
368
357
20
Figure 12: University BME Comparison
University BME Comparison
400
350
300
Other
250
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
200
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
Clinical
150
Teaching only staff
100
Research only staff
Academic
50
0
M
F
2007
5.5
M
F
2008
M
F
2009
M
F
2010
M
F
2011
M
F
2012
M
F
2013
M
F
2014
M
F
2015
University Ethnicity Profile
The vast majority of the University workforce is white – 79.3%. The following most populated group
is Asian or Asian British - Indian (4.7%), Chinese (2.3%) and other Asian background group (1.4%).
There are 1.2% black employees (black or black British – Caribbean, Africa and other black
background). The majority of BME are occupied in Levels 1a-5 support roles with 40.0%, with the
biggest proportion of White and Indian ethnicity groups. Currently the University does not hold
ethnicity information for 6.4% of all staff – 1.6% refused to declare and 6.4% of respondents did not
answer the question (Table 14).
In order to try to understand and address some of the possible reasons why the University is not
attracting BME staff to apply for positions, the University is embarking upon working towards the
Equality Challenge Unit Race Equality Charter Mark. It is anticipated that this Charter Mark will be
formally launched by the ECU early in 2016, and the University is already examining its data for both
staff and students and engaging with the existing Warwick BME community to ascertain their views
on working and studying at Warwick and what they believe the potential barriers may be.
21
Table 12. Faculty BME Profile on 01/09/2015
Administration
0
0.0%
7
31.8%
0
0.0%
27
6.3%
53
11.2%
Faculty of Arts
6
3.7%
3
8.8%
7
13.0%
0
0.0%
6
18.2%
Faculty of Science
46
11.3%
111
22.5%
14
13.3%
20
11.7%
25
8.7%
Faculty of Social Sciences
58
15.1%
7
6.7%
15
9.3%
14
8.6%
17
9.5%
22
8.0%
162
13.8%
1
100.0%
CCSG
Warwick Medical School
Summary
3
42.9%
Summary
Total Headcount
% BME
No. BME
Other
% BME
No. BME
Levels 1a to 5
support staff
% BME
No. BME
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
% BME
% BME
% BME
Clinical
No. BME
Teaching only
staff
No. BME
Research only
staff
No. BME
% BME
No. BME
Academic
955
9.4%
301
7.3%
0
0.0%
1,475
14.7%
992
11.2%
0
0.0%
1,461
12.6%
11
21.6%
43
29.5%
1
4.8%
18
23.4%
10
14.3%
17
15.6%
0
0.0%
476
21.0%
121
12.0%
171
21.3%
37
10.3%
19
24.4%
93
8.3%
280
12.4%
3
11.5%
5,660
12.8%
Faculty of Arts
2
3.2%
3
3.8%
1
4.5%
3
8.8%
7
13.0%
Faculty of Science
12
7.1%
20
12.2%
14
19.2%
111
22.5%
14
13.3%
Faculty of Social
Sciences
Warwick Medical
School
Administration
17
10.9%
24
17.4%
17
19.1%
7
6.7%
15
9.3%
2
8.7%
3
18.8%
6
50.0%
43
29.5%
1
4.8%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
7
31.8%
0
0.0%
1
18
100.0%
23.4%
CCSG
Summary
33
8.0%
50
12.5%
38
19.4%
171
21.3%
37
10.3%
22
19
24.4%
0
0.0%
6
18.2%
20
11.7%
25
8.7%
14
8.6%
17
9.5%
10
14.3%
17
15.6%
0
0.0%
27
6.3%
53
11.2%
3
22
8.0%
162
13.8%
0
93
8.3%
280
12.4%
3
0
Summary
Total Headcount
% BME
% BME
% BME
Other
No. BME
Levels 1a to 5
support staff
No. BME
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
No. BME
% BME
Clinical
No. BME
% BME
% BME
Teaching Only
% BME
No. BME
Research Only
No. BME
Academic Level
7
No. BME
Academic Level
8
% BME
% BME
No. BME
Academic
Level 9
No. BME
Table 13: Detailed Faculty BME Profile
301
8.8%
1,475
5.6%
992
13.5%
476
10.3%
42.9%
955
20.8%
0.0%
1,461
13.2%
11.5%
5,660
12.3%
0.0%
Table 14 University Ethnicity Profile on 01/09/2015
% Ethnicity
Academic
Research
only
staff
Teaching
only
staff
Arab
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
Information refused
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
Other White background
Clinical
Levels 6
to 9
support
staff
0.0%
Levels 1a
to 5
support
staff
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.4%
17.2%
32.5%
Other
Summary
0.2%
1.6%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
14.0%
9.3%
5.0%
1.0%
Black or Black British - Caribbean
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
Black or Black British - African
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.7%
Other Black background
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
Asian or Asian British - Indian
0.5%
0.8%
0.2%
0.2%
0.7%
2.2%
4.7%
Asian or Asian British - Pakistani
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi
Chinese
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.6%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
2.3%
Other Asian background
0.3%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
White
Mixed - White and Black
Caribbean
Mixed - White and Black African
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
79.2%
0.7%
Mixed - White and Asian
0.1%
0.1%
Other mixed background
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
Other ethnic background
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Not Known
1.3%
1.6%
0.5%
0.1%
0.8%
2.1%
0.1%
6.4%
Summary
17.8%
14.2%
6.3%
1.4%
19.9%
40.0%
0.5%
100.0%
0.7%
NB: Figures shown above are calculated as a percentage of the total university population
5.6 Conclusion
Whilst the University’s BME staff population is the highest it has ever been and above the national
HE sector average, in comparison to the overall number of the workforce, it is still relatively low,
with the workforce being predominantly white. There is a particular underrepresentation of
employees from a black background across all categories of staff.
Coventry City Council (June, 2015) has reported, that the percentage of unemployment among the
BME population in Coventry is around 15%, and that it is higher in comparison to the white
population – 6%.
6 Age Profile
6.1 Promotion of Age Equality
Due to the removal of the national default retirement age in October 2011 (Gov UK, July 2010),
there is no longer an upper age limit for employees. This could account for the slight increase in age
group 65+ in comparison to the previous year – 125 in 2014 to 130 employees in 2015.
23
However, Coventry City Council (January 2015) states, that Coventry’s population has a much
younger age profile than England in general; the average age of Coventry’s residents is 34 years,
compared to 40 years nationally. A large factor is the presence of two universities in Coventry.
Coventry is one of the top 20 towns and cities in the UK in terms of proportion of the population
who are students. The student population means that there is continually a large population aged
18-24. This group makes up 13.5% of the population of Coventry compared to England average of
9.2% (Source: Census 2011). There are also other reasons why Coventry is a relatively young city:

A number of European economic migrants, who tended to be in their twenties, moved to
the city a few years ago;
In the 1970s and 1980s many young people left the city looking for work meaning that, today,
there are relatively fewer older people today than might be expected;
Until the last two years the annual number of births was increasing as a trend.
Some established middle aged residents move out of Coventry to more rural areas.



This trend may be reflected in the number of staff employed in the 26-35 age category (1538) with
the most number of staff of this age employed in Levels 1a-5 (548), followed by Research only staff
(450), which is to be expected.
6.2 University Age Profile
The majority of employees at the University are between 26 and 55 years: there are 1538 in the 26
to 35 age category, 1469 in 36 to 45 age category (5 less than 2014), 1450 in 46 to 55 age category.
For the academic category the most commonly employed age groups are 36-45 and 46-55 with 334
and 327 employees respectively. There are more employees of a younger age range from 26 to 35
occupied in research only roles (450 employees), followed by the age group 36-45 – (194
employees). Similar to last year, for Levels 6-9 support staff the most common age range is 36-45,
and for Levels 1a-5 it is 26-35 and 46-55. Apart from the Levels 1a-5 support staff (166), the
proportion of the employees younger than 25 is very low. The lowest proportion of employees is
the age range 65+ (130), but this is still slightly higher than it was in previous years (Table 15, Figure
13).
Table 15: University age Profile on 01.09.2015
Total Headcount
<25
26 - 35
Academic
36 - 45
46 - 55
56 - 65
65+
Total
165
334
327
151
32
1009
Research only staff
15
450
194
85
42
15
801
Teaching only staff
2
87
81
95
73
21
359
14
23
21
17
3
78
Clinical
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
14
273
382
314
130
12
1125
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
441
47
2262
166
548
453
607
Other
22
1
2
1
Total
219
1538
1469
1450
24
26
854
130
5660
Figure 13: University Age Profile
University Age Profile
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Academic
Research only Teaching only
staff
staff
Clinical
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
Levels 1a to 5
support staff
Other
Age Range
<25
26 - 35
36 - 45
46 - 55
56 - 65
65+
6.3 Conclusion
In general, there are no significant concerns about the distribution of the age ranges of employees
in the University. That may be due to the research orientation of the organisation where early career
staff have a valid entry point as post-doctoral staff.
However, the regulations regarding national default retirement age might eventually have an effect
on the landscape of the employee population (Gov UK, July 2010), especially with impending
pension changes imminent. An analysis of the statistics of the University Equality and Diversity web
pages indicated that the page with the most hits on a continual basis is ‘Age’. To try to determine
why this might be, ‘Age’ was a theme topic at an Equality and Diversity Network Meeting held in
January 2015, as well as putting a statement on the ‘Age’ page asking viewers if they had found
what they were looking for and to contact the E&D team if there was other information that they
would like to see on the pages. It became clear at the E&D Network meeting, that staff wanted
more information on preparing them for retirement. As a result, it is intended to host some PreRetirement Seminars to inform staff, not only of pension information, but also to engage with Age
UK and the University Retired Staff Club. The first of these sessions is scheduled for the Autumn
2015 term.
7.
Turnover Profile
7.1 University Staff Turnover by Faculty
The percentage of the total staff turnover has again risen in comparison with the previous year from
13.4% to 14.0%, and the voluntary turnover has increased slightly from 7.3% to 8.40%. The increase
in the total staff turnover appears in most of the staff categories, but with a significant increase in
25
Clinical, which has virtually doubled since 2014 (13 leavers in 2014 to 26 leavers in 2015). This will
be due to the re-structure within the Medical School. Turnover is also particularly evident in Levels
1a-5 support staff from 11.8% in 2014 to 13.1% in 2015. All other categories show a minor drop in
turnover levels - research only staff from 30.3% to 27.5%, teaching only staff from 18.0%to 17.6%
and Levels 6-9 from 10.0% to 9.6%. (Table 16, Figure 14).
In some of the faculties more than half of turnover is voluntary. However, the Faculties of Arts,
Social Science and Science do not concur with this trend, disclosing less than half of voluntary
turnover, which may be a reflection on the increasing proportion of research staff on fixed term
contracts. The highest turnover rate is declared by Warwick Medical School (20.3%), followed by
the Faculty of Science 15.8%, followed by the Faculty of Social Science 13.7% and the Faculty of Arts
with 11.9%. The lowest turnover rate is again in CCSG with 11.7% (Table 16, Figure 14).
Generally, research only staff remains the dominant category in the majority of the faculties in terms
of the turnover rate with dominance in Warwick Medical School and the Faculty of Science, however
this may be because of turnover rate related to the end of fixed term contracts. Whereas for
teaching only staff, the Faculty of Social Science have the largest turnover rate with 17.6%. The
highest proportion of academic staff leavers is in the Faculty of Social Sciences (34 leavers), followed
by the Faculty of Science (24 leavers) (Table 16, Figure 14).
Figure 14: Faculty Staff Turnover
All Turnover - All Staff
60.0%
50.0%
Academic
40.0%
Research only staff
30.0%
Teaching only staff
20.0%
Clinical
10.0%
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
0.0%
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
Other
Total turnover - All
26
Table 16: Staff Turnover by Faculty
Total voluntary turnover %
Total turnover – All %
Leavers during period
Leavers during period
All %
Vol %
Other
Leavers during period
All %
Vol %
Levels 1a to 5
support staff
Leavers during period
Vol %
All %
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
Leavers during period
Vol %
Clinical
All %
Leavers during period
Vol %
Teaching only staff
All %
Leavers during period
Vol %
All %
Research only staff
Leavers during period
Vol %
All %
Academic
Administration
0.0
0.0
0
8.5
8.5
2
12.9
12.9
2
10.7
8.6
45
14.7
11.7
69
40.0
0.0
3
121
12.9
10.1
Faculty of Arts
3.2
0.6
5
18.5
6.2
6
35.3
2.0
18
5.4
0.0
1
14.5
11.6
5
0.0
0.0
0
35
11.9
2.7
Faculty of
Science
5.9
3.0
24
30.3
12.4
146
7.6
4.3
7
12.4
5.9
21
9.8
5.1
27
22.2
22.2
2
226
15.8
7.1
Faculty of
Social Sciences
8.9
6.6
34
27.1
4.0
27
17.6
12.9
26
9.6
7.7
15
16.4
13.2
30
0.0
0.0
0
132
13.7
8.7
6.0
3.4
16
12.7
8.5
152
54.5
36.4
3
171
11.7
7.7
0.0
0.0
0
CCSG
Warwick
Medical School
Summary
23.2
17.9
13
23.5
14.5
34
22.2
13.3
5
30.6
24.7
26
12.7
9.9
9
12.8
10.3
15
0.0
0.0
0
101
20.3
14.6
7.6
4.8
76
27.5
11.4
215
17.6
8.8
58
30.2
24.4
26
9.6
6.6
106
13.1
9.2
297
32.7
16.3
8
783
14.0
8.4
27
7.2 Female Staff Turnover by Faculty
As previously discussed there is a high turnover in all categories for Warwick Medical School due to
a re-structure (19.7% - with a 6.6% voluntary turnover). The figures also indicate that there are
higher levels of turnover in the Faculties of Arts and Sciences, both having 14.9%, followed by the
Faculty of Social Science with 13.7%. These faculties also show the largest differential between
voluntary and total turnover with 12.4% and 8.4% differences, as well as the Faculty of Social Science
with 4.1%. All the other faculties appear to have a fairly balanced voluntary turnover. The categories
of staff with the highest female turnover are research only staff with 23.3% and ‘Other’ with 35.3%
(although the actual numbers are low for other), (Table 17, Figures 15 and 16). In general the
turnover of research only staff is high due to the large number of fixed-term contracts, which also
explains the high numbers in the female turnover in that category.
The Faculty of Arts has a high proportion of turnover of research only and teaching only staff. Apart
from that, the highest voluntary rate appears to be in research only staff in the Faculty of Science
and the Faculty of Social Science.
Figure 15: Female Staff All Turnover by Faculty
Female Staff All Turnover by Faculty
40.0%
30.0%
Academic
20.0%
Research only staff
10.0%
Teaching only staff
Clinical
0.0%
Levels 6 to 9 support staff
Levels 1a to 5 support staff
Other
Figure 16: Female Staff Voluntary Turnover by Faculty
Female Staff Voluntary Turnover by Faculty
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Administration
Academic Vol
Faculty of Arts
Research Staff Vol
Faculty of Science Faculty of Social
Sciences
Teaching Vol
Clinical Vol
28
Levels 6-9 Vol
CCSG
Warwick Medical
School
Levels 1a-5 Vol
Others Vol
Table 17: Female Staff Turnover by Faculty
Total voluntary turnover
%
Total turnover – All %
Leavers during
period
13.3
13.3
2
20.0
20.0
2
8.3
6.8
23
14.7
11.8
50
33.3
0.0
2
12.2
9.7
2
25.0
0.0
4
32.4
0.0
12
7.4
0.0
1
17.5
14.0
5
0.0
0.0
0
14.9
2.5
Faculty of Science
5.8
2.9
4
24.1
7.0
31
6.1
3.0
2
21.1
10.5
14
10.9
6.1
18
0.0
0.0
1
14.9
6.5
Faculty of Social
Sciences
CCSG
9.4
8.5
11
20.3
3.4
12
17.6
14.7
12
8.4
5.6
9
16.5
13.3
26
0.0
0.0
0
13.7
9.6
8.3
5.9
7
11.6
7.8
83
0.0
0.0
0
11.3
7.6
Warwick Medical
School
Summary %
22.7
9.1
5
25.6
13.3
23
25.0
12.5
4
28.1
21.9
9
13.9
12.2
8
13.8
11.8
14
0.0
0.0
0
19.7
13.1
8.0
5.1
22
23.3
8.1
72
19.5
9.1
32
28.1
21.9
9
10.0
7.1
61
12.9
9.4
195
35.3
11.8
3
13.5
8.5
Leavers during
period
Vol %
0
0.0
All %
Vol %
Leavers during
period
All %
Leavers during
period
0.0
3.0
All %
0.0
Faculty of Arts
All %
Vol %
Vol %
Other
All %
Vol %
Levels 1a to 5 support
staff
Vol %
Leavers during
period
Levels 6 to 9 support
staff
All %
Leavers during
period
Clinical
Administration
All %
Vol %
Teaching only staff
Leavers during
period
Research only staff
Leavers during
period
Academic
Table 18: Disabled Staff Turnover by Faculty
1
27.5
19.6
7
Vol %
2
All %
10.3
Leavers during
period
Leavers during
period
Leavers during
period
Vol %
10.3
0.0
0.0
1
Total voluntary turnover
%
100.0
Other
Total turnover – All %
100.0
Vol %
0
Levels 1a to 5 support
staff
All %
0.0
Levels 6 to 9 support
staff
Vol %
0.0
All %
Clinical
Leavers during
period
Vol %
All %
Leavers during
period
Vol %
Teaching only staff
All %
Administration
All %
Research only staff
Leavers during
period
Vol %
All %
Academic
23.4
17.0
Faculty of Arts
11.8
0.0
1
33.3
0.0
1
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0
30.8
0.0
Faculty of
Science
Faculty of
Social
Sciences
CCSG
18.2
0.0
1
16.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0
18.2
18.2
1
11.8
11.8
1
0.0
0.0
0
14.5
5.8
0.0
0.0
0
18.2
0.0
1
13.3
13.3
1
12.5
12.5
1
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0
8.8
5.9
0.0
0.0
0
20.6
9.3
11
0.0
0.0
0
18.6
8.5
Warwick
Medical School
Summary
0.0
0.0
0
57.1
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0
66.7
66.7
1
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0
25.0
8.3
10.0
0.0
2
24.0
0.0
6
32.0
16.0
4
66.7
66.7
1
10.4
10.4
4
17.9
10.0
18
66.7
0.0
1
18.0
8.5
29
7.3 Disabled Staff Turnover by Faculty
According to the figures, the highest turnover of disabled staff is in the Faculty of Arts (30.8%)
followed by Warwick Medical School (25.0%) and Administration (23.4%). The former has large
differential between voluntary and all turnover with 30.8% and no voluntary turnover figures
(although the actual figures are low – 1 academic, 1 research only and 2 teaching only staff). Unlike
the two previous years where voluntary turnover was 0.0%, the Faculty of Science have shown a
5.8% for 2015. However, again, the numbers are low – 1 academic, 2 research only staff, 1 Levels
6-9 support staff and 1 Levels 1a-5 support staff) (Table 18, Figure 17).
Disabled Staff Turnover
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
Total turnover - All
0.00%
Total voluntary turnover
Figure 17: Disabled Staff Turnover
7.4 BME Staff Turnover by Faculty
The data relevant to BME staff turnover show a high turnover rate in Warwick Medical School
(21.2%), and the Faculty of Science (20.3%) followed by CCSG (16.0%). The differential between the
actual and voluntary being 16.3%, 9.9% and 12.3% respectively. The Administration shows actual
and voluntary turnover showing the same figure (4.7%). In the Faculty of Science it is research only
staff that are prevalent over all the other turnover rates, presented with 34.1%, but of course, this
is because of the nature of their fixed term contracts. (Table 18, Figure 18).
BME Staff Turnover
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Total turnover - All
Total voluntary turnover
Figure 18: BME Staff Turnover
30
Table 18 BME Staff Turnover by Faculty
0
0.0
0.0
0
Faculty of Arts
0.0
0.0
0
28.6
28.6
1
16.7
0.0
1
Faculty of
Science
2.3
2.3
1
34.1
15.6
35
8.0
8.0
1
Faculty of Social
Sciences
1.8
1.8
1
47.1
23.5
4
16.7
8.3
2
0.0
0.0
0
CCSG
4.0
1
5.9
5.9
3
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
Vol %
All %
Other
Leavers during
period
Vol %
All %
Leavers during
period
Vol %
All %
Leavers during
period
Vol %
4.0
Levels 1a to 5
support staff
0.0
Total voluntary
turnover %
0.0
Levels 6 to 9
support staff
Total turnover – All
%
0.0
Clinical
All %
Leavers during
period
Vol %
All %
Leavers during
period
Vol %
Teaching only staff
Leavers during
period
Administration
All %
Research only staff
Leavers during
period
Vol %
All %
Academic
0
4.7
4.7
9.8
4.9
11.1
11.1
2
8.5
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0
20.3
9.9
0.0
0.0
0
26.7
26.7
4
0.0
0.0
0
10.6
7.7
5.0
5.0
1
17.4
13.2
29
0.0
0.0
0
16.0
12.3
Warwick Medical
School
8.3
8.3
1
26.2
14.3
11
0.0
0.0
0
38.1
38.1
8
18.2
18.2
2
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0
21.2
16.3
Summary %
2.5
2.5
3
31.3
15.3
51
12.7
6.3
4
36.4
36.4
8
6.9
6.9
6
13.7
10.4
38
0.0
0.0
0
15.7
10.4
31
7.5 Conclusion
Other than in Warwick Medical School where a re-structure has been taking place during 2014/15,
the turnover is mainly caused by fixed term contracts, as for instance, with the research only staff
category. The high rate of turnover on the Faculty of Science is provided by the large number of staff
employed overall. Due to the small number of disabled staff it is hard to draw any valid conclusions
about the turnover.
8
Final Conclusion for Workforce Profile Statistics
The University of Warwick has a longstanding commitment to the promotion of equality and
undertakes a wide range of activities to promote diversity and meet the needs of different groups
of staff. Overall, it could be inferred that a good balance of a diverse workforce has been maintained
in the last year and certain improvements have been reached, however there are areas for
improvement, such as increasing the disability disclosure rate.
The work of the University in promoting equality is evidence-based and underpinned by
consultation with staff. The analysis of the data gives the realistic picture of the situation and helps
to inform initiatives, such as Athena SWAN and the Race Equality Charter Mark Action Plans. The
University also considers the data when reviewing the University Equality Objectives, which is a
public sector requirement of the specific duties of the Equality Act.
32
SECTION B - RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION
KEY STATISTICS
From 31 July 2014 to 01 August 2015, the University advertised for 1,122 positions,
which attracted 7,526 applications from females and 7,763 from males (260
applicants did not disclose their gender).
Of the 1,122 vacancies and subsequent 15,549 applications, only 494 applicants
disclosed a disability.
For Level 9 academic roles, whilst more applications were received by males (140)
than females (36), the appointment rate was split 50:50% with 3 posts being offered
to both male and female applicants.
The offer rate for BME staff is considerably lower than for their white counterparts
(6.94% white and 2.71% BME).
Of the 50 applications received for Level 9 roles (professorial), no applicants from a
BME background were employed.
33
SECTION B – RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION
1.1 Recruitment by Gender
It is intended that moving forward, Recruitment and Selection data will be included in this report. Tables 19
to 24 display recruitment data on gender and vacancy type; grade and gender; disability and vacancy type;
disability and grade; ethnicity and vacancy type and ethnicity and grade. On the whole recruitment is not a
major problem for the majority of HEIs. However problems can exist but tend to be confined to specific
occupational groups or academic subject areas.
Table 19 shows that in 2014/15 period (31 July 2014 to 01 August 2015) that the University had advertised
1,122 positions, which in total attracted 7,526 applications from females and 7,763 from males (260
applicants did not specify their gender). There were 86 adverts for academic positions, which received in
total 1,840 applications and of those offered positions, 21 were female and 29 were male. Support roles
attracted the most number of applications – for 383 adverts, a total of 5,521 applications were received,
resulting in 182 females being appointed as opposed to 139 males - 5 applicants chose not to disclose their
gender at the application stage. For research only staff, significantly more men were appointed - 89 females
as opposed to 136 males – however it should be noted that there were virtually double the number of male
applicants for these roles than female.
Table 20 indicates that the highest number of adverts placed were for Level 6 roles (389 adverts), followed
by Level 7 (176 adverts) and Level 5 (125 adverts). The level that had the least number of adverts placed was
Clinical roles (14 adverts), followed closely by Other (18 adverts) and Level 9 (26 adverts). Grade 6 roles
attracted the majority of applications (2,058 females and 3,281 males) with 115 females and 172 males being
offered employment. Interestingly for Level 9 roles, whilst more applications were received by males (140)
than females (36), the appointment rate was split 50:50% with 3 posts being offered to both male and female
applicants. Clinical grade appointments were also split 50:50%. As discussed earlier in this report, for support
staff on Levels 3 to 5, the majority of posts offered were to females, which suggests that roles such as clerical
and administrative support are still predominantly held by female staff.
1.2 Recruitment by Disability
Of the 1,122 vacancies and subsequent 15,549 applications, only 494 applicants disclosed a disability,
compared to 14,566 who claimed no disability and 489 who chose not to disclose (Table 21). The recruitment
rate of those with disability is low (17 applicants) to those without a disability (808 applicants), with another
31 applicants preferring not to disclose. This is of concern and should be further investigated as to the
reasons why appointments were not made – for example, is it because the applicants do not meet the
essential criteria of the post, are they being short-listed or if they are interviewed, is there an element of
unconscious bias entering into the recruitment process?
Table 22 shows that the grade of role that attracted most disabled applicants was Level 6 (116), followed
closely by Level 3 (94), again this may be because they are support roles, which generally attract more
applicants. Academic roles had the lowest number of disabled applicants (Level 7:66; Level 8:19; Level 9:2
and Clinical 1). Across all these four grades, only 3 applicants with a disclosed disability obtained an offer of
a post, as opposed to 163 non-disabled.
34
1.3 Recruitment by Ethnicity
Table 23 indicates that of the 15,549 applications received, 9,814 were from white applicants, 5,059 were
from BME applicants and 679 preferred not to disclose. The offer rate for BME staff is considerably lower
than for their white counterparts (6.94% White and 2.71% respectively). For applicants preferring not to
disclose 38 were offered positions (5.60%) so it may be likely that some of those staff could identify as BME.
Similar to disability, the level of role that attracts the most BME applicants is Level 6 (2,280 BME applicants;
2904 white applicants). However more BME applicants than disabled applicants have applied for Level 7
roles. Despite this, success rate amongst BME applicants is significantly lower than white applicants with 137
BME applicants being offered employment against 681 white applicants being offered employment. Of the
50 applications received for Level 9 roles (professorial), no applicants from a BME background were
employed.
1.4 Recruitment Conclusion
Without looking at each individual advert and applications, it is difficult to say, why disabled and BME staff
in particular, are not being recruited in relation to the number of applications received. There may of course,
by a multitude of reasons, such as applicants not meeting the essential criteria of the role, or English not
being the first language and therefore the application not being as articulate as they might be. However
there may also be other elements to the process that need attention, for example, is unconscious or indeed
conscious bias seeping into the recruitment process?
HR have spent a considerable amount of time during 2014/15 reviewing the recruitment and selection
process, to make it more efficient and streamlined. Training for panel chairs is also due to be rolled out to
tackle such issues as unconscious bias and general equality issues as well as the practicalities of chairing
recruitment panels. Elements of the recruitment training programme will also be delivered to other
members of the recruitment panels. Staff responsible for shortlisting applicants will be tasked with ensuring
that shortlisting criteria is followed and each applications cored against that criteria to ensure that the
process is fair and reliable.
Data will be further examined for next year’s report to see if there has been an improvement in the
recruitment statistics of disabled and BME staff, given that initiatives such as Athena SWAN and the Race
Equality Charter Mark work are being given a high profile across the institution.
35
Table 19: Recruitment Data by gender and vacancy type
40.38%
1262
29
2.30%
55.77%
39
2
Research Only
300
1216
89
7.32%
39.04%
2482
136
5.48%
59.65%
93
Teaching Only
71
469
24
5.12%
40.00%
763
33
4.33%
55.00%
30
Clinical & Medical
16
14
5
35.71%
62.50%
19
3
15.79%
37.50%
266
1766
111
6.29%
61.33%
1199
66
5.50%
383
3483
183
5.25%
55.96%
2038
139
6.82%
Management &
Professional
Support Staff
Total
1122
7526
*% of females who applied and were offered a job
** Gender split of all offered jobs
433
5.75%
50.58%
7763
406
5.23%
Offered
Applications
5.13%
3.85%
1879
52
3
3.23%
1.32%
3791
228
3
10.00%
5.00%
1262
60
1
0
0.00%
0.00%
34
8
36.46%
36
4
11.11%
2.21%
3001
181
42.51%
61
5
8.20%
1.53%
5582
327
47.43%
260
17
% pntd offered
3.63%
Offered
21
Applications
578
Total
% offered
who pntd
% pntd
offered
Offered
Applications
% offered
who are male
% male
offered
Offered
% offered
who are
female**
Offered
Prefer not to disclose
86
% offered who
are female
Academic
Male
Applications
Female
% female
offered*
No.
adverts
Applications
Vacancy category
6.54%
1.99%
15549
856
Offered
Applications
% offered who
pntd
Applications
% offered who
are male
% male offered
Offered
% female
offered
Offered
Applications
No. of Adverts
Grade Category
Table 20: By Grade and Gender
Level 1
44
410
23
5.61%
44.23%
238
28
11.76%
53.85%
7
1
14.29%
1.92%
655
52
Level 2
55
396
25
6.31%
44.64%
228
30
13.16%
53.57%
9
1
11.11%
1.79%
633
56
Level 3
106
1376
61
4.43%
64.89%
624
31
4.97%
32.98%
25
2
8.00%
2.13%
2025
94
Level 4
103
1022
56
5.48%
66.67%
560
26
4.64%
30.95%
13
2
15.38%
2.38%
1595
84
Level 5
125
733
58
7.91%
61.05%
497
36
7.24%
37.89%
13
1
7.69%
1.05%
1243
95
Level 6
389
2058
115
5.59%
38.98%
3281
172
5.24%
58.31%
130
8
6.15%
2.71%
5469
295
Level 7
176
1146
67
5.85%
56.30%
1506
51
3.39%
42.86%
39
1
2.56%
0.84%
2691
119
Level 8
66
316
19
6.01%
45.24%
584
22
3.77%
52.38%
20
1
5.00%
2.38%
920
42
Level 9
26
36
3
8.33%
50.00%
140
3
2.14%
50.00%
1
0
0.00%
0.00%
177
6
Clinical
14
11
3
27.27%
50.00%
19
3
15.79%
50.00%
1
0
0.00%
0.00%
31
6
Other
18
22
3
13.64%
42.86%
86
4
4.65%
57.14%
2
0
0.00%
0.00%
110
7
Total
1122
7526
433
5.75%
50.58%
7763
406
5.23%
47.43%
260
36
17
6.54%
1.99%
15549
856
Table 21: Recruitment data by disability and vacancy type
0.00%
1768
50
2.83%
96.15%
80
2
2.50%
3.85%
1879
52
Research Only
300
63
3
4.76%
1.32%
3589
217
6.05%
95.18%
139
8
5.76%
3.51%
3791
228
Teaching Only
71
47
0
0.00%
0.00%
1164
56
4.81%
93.33%
51
4
7.84%
6.67%
1262
60
Clinical & Medical
16
1
0
0.00%
0.00%
30
8
26.67%
100.00%
3
0
0.00%
0.00%
34
8
Management &
Professional
Support Staff
266
88
3
3.41%
1.66%
2829
171
6.04%
94.48%
84
7
8.33%
3.87%
3001
181
383
264
11
4.17%
3.36%
5186
306
5.90%
93.58%
132
10
7.58%
3.06%
5582
327
1122
494
17
3.44%
1.99%
14566
808
5.55%
94.39%
489
31
6.34%
3.62%
15549
856
Offered
Applications
0.00%
% offered
who pntd
0
% pntd
offered
31
Offered
Applications
% offered
who are not
disabled
86
Offered
% not
disabled
offered
Total
Academic
Total
Applications
Prefer not to disclose
% offered
who are
disabled
No
% disabled
offered
Yes
Offered
No.
adverts
Applications
Vacancy type
Table 22: Recruitment data by grade and disability
Offered
Applications
Total
% offered
who pntd
% pntd
offered
Offered
Applications
Prefer not to disclose
% offered
who are
not
disabled
% not
disabled
offered
Offered
Applications
No
% offered
who are
disabled
% disabled
offered
Yes
Offered
No.
adverts
Applications
Grade
category
Level 1
44
40
1
2.50%
1.92%
604
51
8.44%
98.08%
11
0
0.00%
0.00%
655
52
Level 2
55
33
2
6.06%
3.57%
587
52
8.86%
92.86%
13
2
15.38%
3.57%
633
56
Level 3
106
94
4
4.26%
4.26%
1880
86
4.57%
91.49%
51
4
7.84%
4.26%
2025
94
Level 4
103
66
3
4.55%
3.57%
1490
79
5.30%
94.05%
39
2
5.13%
2.38%
1595
84
Level 5
125
55
3
5.45%
3.16%
1148
87
7.58%
91.58%
40
5
12.50%
5.26%
1243
95
Level 6
Level 7
Level 8
389
176
66
116
66
19
1
2
1
0.86%
3.03%
5.26%
0.34%
1.68%
2.38%
5154
2534
865
283
110
41
5.49%
4.34%
4.74%
95.93%
92.44%
97.62%
199
91
36
11
7
0
5.53%
7.69%
0.00%
3.73%
5.88%
0.00%
5469
2691
920
295
119
42
Level 9
Clinical
Other
Total
26
14
18
1122
2
1
2
494
0
0
0
17
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.99%
171
27
106
14566
6
6
7
808
3.51%
22.22%
6.60%
1
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
94.39%
4
3
2
489
0
0
0
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.62%
177
31
110
15549
6
6
7
856
37
Table23: Recruitment data by ethnic and vacancy type
Academic
Total
Offered
Applications
% offered who
are pntd
% pntd offered
Offered
Applications
% offered who
are BME
Offered
Applications
Offered
Prefer not to disclose
% BME offered
BME
% offered who
are white
White
% white
offered
No.
adverts
Applications
Vacancy
Type
86
1177
42
3.57%
80.77%
578
5
0.87%
9.62%
127
5
3.94%
9.62%
1879
52
Research Only
300
1682
150
8.92%
65.79%
1888
64
3.39%
28.07%
221
14
6.33%
6.14%
3791
228
Teaching Only
71
796
47
5.90%
78.33%
415
9
2.17%
15.00%
51
4
7.84%
6.67%
1262
60
Clinical &
Medical
Management &
Professional
Support Staff
16
22
5
22.73%
62.50%
10
3
30.00%
37.50%
2
0
0.00%
0.00%
34
8
266
2063
160
7.76%
88.40%
830
16
1.93%
8.84%
108
5
4.63%
2.76%
3001
181
383
4074
277
6.80%
84.71%
1338
40
2.99%
12.23%
170
10
5.88%
3.06%
5582
327
4.44%
15549
Total
1122
9814
681
6.94%
79.56%
5059
137
2.71%
16.00%
679
38
5.60%
856
Table 24: Recruitment data by grade and ethnic
Offered
Applications
Total
% offered
who pntd
% pntd
offered
Offered
Applications
% offered
who are
White
Prefer not to disclose
% White
offered
Offered
% BME
offered
Offered
White
Applications
BME
% offered
who are
BME
No.
adverts
Applications
Grade
category
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
44
55
106
144
157
489
7
6
15
4.86%
3.82%
3.07%
13.46%
10.71%
15.96%
485
457
1476
45
48
76
9.28%
10.50%
5.15%
86.54%
85.71%
80.85%
26
19
60
0
2
3
0.00%
10.53%
5.00%
0.00%
3.57%
3.19%
655
633
2025
52
56
94
103
360
8
2.22%
9.52%
1190
72
6.05%
85.71%
45
4
8.89%
4.76%
1595
84
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7
Level 8
Level 9
Clinical
Other
125
389
176
411
2280
813
14
67
11
3.41%
2.94%
1.35%
14.74%
22.71%
9.24%
784
2904
1746
76
215
99
9.69%
7.40%
5.67%
80.00%
72.88%
83.19%
48
285
132
5
13
9
10.42%
4.56%
6.82%
5.26%
4.41%
7.56%
1243
5469
2691
95
295
119
66
26
14
285
50
7
6
0
1
2.11%
0.00%
14.29%
14.29%
0.00%
16.67%
584
121
22
35
6
5
5.99%
4.96%
22.73%
83.33%
100.00%
83.33%
51
6
2
1
0
0
1.96%
0.00%
0.00%
2.38%
0.00%
0.00%
920
177
31
42
6
6
Total
18
1122
63
5059
2
137
3.17%
2.71%
28.57%
16.00%
43
9812
4
681
9.30%
6.94%
57.14%
79.56%
38
4
678
1
38
25.00%
5.60%
14.29%
4.44%
110
15549
7
856
References
Coventry City Council. (June, 2015). Coventry Headline Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://www.coventry.gov.uk/downloads/file/17029/headline_statistics_-_june_2015
Coventry City Council. (June, 2015). Coventry’s Population Estimate 2014, Insight. Retrieved from:
http://www.coventry.gov.uk/downloads/file/16849/coventrys_population_estimate_2014
Coventry City Council Corporate Research – Equalities and Diversity – Census 2011 - 2011 census
data by the Office for National Statistics(ONS) a presentation containing the latest Equality and
Diversity Profile for Coventry. Retrieved from: http://www.facts-aboutcoventry.com/uploaded/documents/Equality%20and%20diversity.pdf
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/release-calendar/index.html
Demographics of staff in UK HE – HESA publication ‘Staff in Higher Education 2013/14’, February
2015. Retrieved from: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pr/3473-press-release-212.
Department for Work and Pensions. (July 2014). Guidance: Employing disabled people and people
with health conditions. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employing-disabled-people-and-people-withhealth-conditions/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditions
Equality Factsheet 1, Coventry People and… Age, January 2015 Edition, Retrieved from
www.coventry.gov.uk.
Equality Factsheet 6, Coventry People and… Race and Ethnicity, January 2015 Edition, Retrieved
from www.coventry.gov.uk.
Equality Challenge Unit. Equality in Higher Education: Statistical Report 2014, Part 1: Staff,
November 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-higher-educationstatistical-report-2014/
Equality Monitoring Report. (2013-14). Equality Monitoring Report. Retrieved from:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/equalops/eo_data/
GOV UK. (July, 2010). Phasing out the Default Retirement Age. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31485/10-1047default-retirement-age-consultation.pdf
Higher Education Statistics Agency – HESA SFR 209, 2013/14 Statistical First Release. Retrieved
from: https://www.hesa.ac.uk.sfr209
Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2014). Staff Introduction 2012/13. Retrieved from:
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_pubs&Itemid=&task=show_year&pubId=1709&v
ersionId=35&yearId=311
Mental Health Foundation. (2013). Mental health statistics. Retrieved from:
http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/
39
Official Labour Market Statistics (Nomis), Labour Market Profile – Coventry, April 2014 - March
2015, retrieved from:
http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/Imp/la/1946157187/report.aspx?town=coventry
Office of National Statistics (June 2014). Retrieved from: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/popestimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northernireland/2013/index.html
Statistical First Release 209 – Staff at HE Providers – Higher Education Statistics Agency, 18
December 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/sfr209.
40