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