EDC Paper 13/13-14
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
EQUITY IMPACT OF MERIT PAY REVIEW 2012/13
REPORT TO THE EQUITY & DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
1. Purpose of this Paper
This report summarises the key equity impacts of the Merit Pay Scheme 2012/13.
2. Table 1- Summary of Equity Impact of Merit Pay Review 2012/13
MERIT PAY SCHEME A
Participation Rate (last year)
Gender Participation Rate
Average Rating Score (last year)
Gender Average Rating Score
Disparity in Gender Average Rating Score (last year)
Ethnicity Participation Rate
Ethnicity Average Rating Score
51.3%
F 52.8%
4.25
F 4.24
0.02
BME 46.7%
BME 3.99
(53.5%)
M 48.9%
(4.05)
M 4.26
(0.13)
White 52.1%
White 4.28
138
F 65.2%
F 59.5%
1A- 5 35.5%
BME 8.7%
BME 11.5%
4.1% of 3,391
M 34.8%
M 40.5%
6- 8 64.5%
White 91.3%
White 88.5%
MERIT PAY SCHEME B
Approved Nominations N (%)
Gender Approved Nominations
Gender Potentially Eligible
% of Awards by Grade
Ethnicity Approved Nominations
Ethnicity Potentially Eligible
3. Equity Analysis of Merit Pay Scheme A 2012/13
The overall participation rate fell to 51.3% this year (from 53.5% in 2011/12). There is some
evidence that those who received scores of under 4.0 had not re- applied in 2012/13. The
female participation rate at 52.8% was slightly higher than male participation at 48.9%.
The average approved rating scores rose to 4.25 (4.05 in 2011/12). A smaller proportion of
staff took part but they received a higher average score. This suggests that those receiving
lower scores have chosen not to participate this year. The male average score was 4.26
(4.18) while the female average score was 4.24 (4.05). Thus the gender differential fell from
0.13 to 0.02. Females out- score males in all grades other than Grade 1A.
There continues to be a general inverse relationship of grade to average recommended
rating score reported in 2010, although this is a weak relationship from Grade 3 to Grade 8.
There is a lower participation rate among BME staff (46.7%) than among their White
counterparts (52.3%) and BME staff were awarded a lower average score (3.99) compared
H/VP/2014-08- E&D Report
1
EDC Paper 13/13-14
to White staff (4.28). This is largely explained by the grading effect, as a larger proportion of
BME staff are graded 1A- 2 with lower average scores, but is of concern nonetheless. The
score gap is almost exactly unchanged from last year.
4. Equity Analysis of Merit Pay Scheme B 2012/13
In the first year of the operation of Scheme B the Advisory Group approved awards to 138
staff of whom 65.2% were female, whereas only 59.5% of potentially eligible staff are
female. The average score of 4.71 is slightly lower than that of their male counterparts at
4.73. The minimum qualifying score was 4.5. 64.5% of awards were made to staff in Grades
6- 8 whereas no awards were made to staff in Grades 1A- 1B.
Only 12 of the 138 recipients of awards (8.7%) were BME, whereas 11.5% of all Grade 1A- 8
staff are BME.
5. Proposals to Reduce Inequity in Merit Pay Awards
Some progress has been made in securing a more equitable outcome from Merit Pay in
terms of gender, most notably a closing of the rating score gap from 0.13 to 0.02, but issues
remain in terms of the equity across levels of seniority and ethnicity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposals are to be made to the Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Group on 4 February 2014 with
improvement in the equity outcomes of Merit Pay being a key priority. Should the Advisory
Group give approval to these proposals they will be fully discussed with representatives of
staff.
Scheme B was operated for the first time in 2012/13 and important lessons have been
learned in doing so, particularly regarding the consistency of application of the arrangements
across the University.
Peter R. Bridger
Reward Manager
H/VP/2014-08- E&D Report
2