STAFF EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY PROFILE REPORT 2014/15

Transcription

1 1. Introduction STAFF EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY PROFILE REPORT 2014/ The annual Staff Equality and Diversity Profile Report 2014/15 has been developed alongside the Equality and Diversity Annual Report 2014/15, and the Student Equality and Diversity Profile Report 2014/ This report comprises an analysis of all of the University s substantive staff groups for the period 1st August 2014 to 31st July It provides a snapshot of the core representation and participation of the University s 2213 staff at the year-end, along with applicant monitoring information, by ethnicity (Black Minority Ethnic (BME)), gender, disability and age, in relation to: Workforce profile, Recruitment and Retention 1.3 Information in the report is drawn from the University s annual staff Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA) return (available March 2016). 1.4 The annual Equality Challenge Unit Statistical Report 2015 (published January 2016) has enabled sector comparisons and benchmarks to be made where appropriate. Trends have also been highlighted where relevant, for the purposes of context and measuring progress, using data from previous profile reports to enable year on year comparisons. 1.5 Whilst this report is a response to the University s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty, it also supports its core equality and diversity mission and values. These are: Equality of educational opportunity. Valuing the rights, responsibilities, dignity and health and wellbeing of individuals through our commitment to equality and diversity. Valuing probity and integrity in all our actions. The University is committed to achieving its vision by working towards greater transparency and will continue to publish equality information through the annual equality and diversity reports. 2. The Equality Act The Public Sector Equality Duty requires the University to have due regard to the following, in the execution of its activities: Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Advance equality of opportunity between people from different groups, by considering the need to minimise disadvantages and meet the needs of people with protected characteristics. Foster good relations between people from different groups. 2.2 The Equality Duty applies to staff in relation to the nine protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex, marriage and civil partnership, and sexual orientation. The collection of equality data for staff in relation to age, race, disability, and gender, is well established. During 2012 the University extended its equality monitoring portfolio to encompass religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender identity. The introduction of Keele People (an integrated HR/Payroll system) including an employee self-service facility Page 1 of 24

2 has facilitated data collection in these areas. A summary of the staff profile declarations to date are provided as part of this report. 2.3 Publishing Equality Information-There is a statutory requirement for the University to collect and publish equality information to demonstrate its compliance with equalities legislation. The annual equality reports will be published at the academic year-end on the University web pages, and a summary will be made available in alternative formats upon request. 2.4 Equality Strategy and Objectives-The equality gaps identified within this report, through the analysis of staff equality information, will be used to inform and progress the activities that underpin the University s equality objectives for These are published on the Keele University equality and diversity web pages in accordance with statutory requirements. 3. Summary of Report 3.1 This report relates to substantive staff only. It does not include individuals engaged on casual contracts or clinical secondees from the NHS. Staff are employed in five main groups, referred to as job families. These are: Academic, Professional and Managerial, Administrative, Technical, and Operational. 3.2 Where relevant, staff information is presented and analysed by service area. The service areas comprise three faculties; Faculty of Health, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Faculty of Natural Sciences. In addition, the work of the six Directorates is presented and is classified as University Administration. 3.3 The following summary outlines the headline staff equality information as it applies to the workforce profile, applicants, shortlisted and successful applicants, and retention. 4. Workforce profile a) An overview of the 2213 headcount by equality characteristics indicates Keele has an overall BME staff profile of 5%, which is lower than the sector averages, but is consistent with the demographic data for the local area. Within the academic job group the proportion of BME staff rises to 8.6%, which is likely explained by a wider recruitment pool for this job group, than just the local geography. b) 62% of the workforce are women and 38% men, which is broadly in line with sector averages. Variations in gender representation occur by job family and service area, and arise largely as a result of established gender bias in job/career decisions. c) Disabled staff represent 3.7% of the workforce, slightly lower than the sector average of 4.2%. d) The majority of Keele s workforce is represented across the 3 age groups: 30-39, and Keele has a lower representation of staff in the and age groups. This reflects the working age populations across the sector, the stability of the workforce and an ageing workforce. Page 2 of 24

3 5. Recruitment a) The success rate of BME candidates has remained about the same since last year at 1.8%. However, the success rate of white candidates has increased marginally (from 4.3% to 5.4%), thus increasing the differential between the two groups. b) The University attracts a higher proportion of female candidates to vacancies across all areas. There is a slight variation in the success rates of men and women during the period, with women making up a slightly greater proportion of the successful candidates. c) The University has continued to attract a similar proportion of disabled and nondisabled job applicants over the last 6 years, however, the success rate of disabled candidates has reduced slightly and currently stands at 1.1% compared to 4.9% for non-disabled candidates. d) Age data shows that there is some variation in the success of applicants across age brackets. The majority of applications are received from the and age groups; however, they have a lower success rate compared to the and age groups. 6. Retention a) The University had an average turnover of 5.6% during the reporting period, a slight increase from the previous year of 4.9%. Turnover within the BME staff group has reduced for the second year and is now comparable to turnover within the white staff group. b) The leaver profile by gender remains stable and is proportionate to the overall staff profile, suggesting no gender barriers to retention. c) A total of 5 disabled staff left the organisation in the reporting period indicating a slight increase in turnover to 6.0% from 2013/14; however, given the very small number involved this is not deemed to be significant. However, there is a large proportion of leavers with unknown/refused disability information, accounting for 17.7% of all leavers. d) The highest proportion of leavers was in the age group, reflecting the career mobility of this group. 7. Summary of Actions Arising from this Report 7.1 As part of the on-going review of Keele s Equality & Diversity Strategy, the University will continue to use appropriate positive action measures, such as including positive active statements in recruitment adverts to tackle areas of under representation highlighted within the University. 7.2 As part of the embedding of Keele People, the University will continue to engage with managers and staff on the value of completing equality data through employee selfservice. We will highlight to staff the importance of data disclosure in assessing the workforce and identifying areas for action. The LGBT and Disability staff networks will also be asked to support engagement. Page 3 of 24

4 7.3 The University will continue to mainstream equality and diversity in all aspects of learning and development including, but not limited to recruitment and selection training, SPRE guidance and training. 7.4 The University recognises the ageing profile of the workforce and, in support of the University aim of creating an age friendly campus, will provide support for individuals and managers consistent with best practice in managing an ageing workforce. Actions include the use of flexible working policies to manage retirement, building manager capacity and undertaking wellbeing and support initiatives across the university. 7.5 The University will continue to adopt a co-ordinated approach to the recruitment and development of apprentices with a view to improving the representation of young people as well as developing skills for the future. 7.6 This report highlights that further action is required in relation to disabled staff within the areas of information disclosure and recruitment. Continued engagement on the value of providing equality data will be targeted particularly to encourage disability declarations in a safe and supportive environment highlighting the benefits of sharing this information. HR will consider what action might be taken to improve the success rate for disabled candidates during recruitment. 7.7 The University will continue to act upon its commitment to race equality by considering actions to attract more applicants from the BME community and to reduce the difference in success rates between white and BME candidates during the recruitment process. 7.8 In January 2016 the Equality Charter Unit launched a new Race Equality Charter (REC) with the aim of improving the representation, progression and success of minority ethnic staff and students within higher education. The REC provides a framework through which institutions will work to identify and self-reflect on institutional and cultural barriers standing in the way of minority ethnic staff and students. The University recognises the value of this new charter in improving race equality and will prepare an action plan in support of the aims set out in the REC at the beginning of the next academic year. Page 4 of 24

5 SECTION 1- ETHNICITY 1.1 WORKFORCE PROFILE BY ETHNICITY COMPARED TO SECTOR AND LOCAL BENCHMARK DATA Fig 1- Overall BME Profile Keele Staff HESA Benchmark 2014/5 (% of known ethnicity) Keele Benchmark Group 2014/15 1 White BME Unknown 91% 5% 4% (of which 3% declined to give information) 88% 12% - 84% 11% 5% There is no change in the percentage of BME staff at Keele from 2013/14. BME proportions of staff remain low compared to the sector and Keele Benchmark group averages. However, it should be noted that the sector and group benchmark have both seen a small increase in their proportions of BME staff in the past 12 months from 10% and 11% respectively Keele University is located within Newcastle-under-Lyme, with borders with Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Moorlands. The ethnicity profile of each are listed below and are as per the 2011 Census data. Fig local area census data Total population White % BME % Stoke-on-Trent 249, Newcastle-under-Lyme 123, Stafford 130, Staffordshire Moorlands 97, Although there is variation across the region, the total percentage BME population for the local area is 7%. THE BME population is highest in Stoke-on-Trent at 11.4% and lowest in Staffordshire Moorlands at 1.3%. Typically, applicants and post holders for administrative and operational posts, reside in the Newcastle area. 1 The Keele benchmark group includes the following institutions: The University of Birmingham, The University of Essex, The University of Exeter, The University of Kent, The University of Lancaster, The University of Sussex, The University of Warwick and the University of York. Page 5 of 24

6 Fig 3 Workforce Ethnicity by Job Family 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 86.9% 95.7% 95.1% 90.6% 89.1% 8.6% 6.7% 5.9% 4.5% 2.5% 1.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.7% 5.0% Academic Ethnicity by Job Family Administrative Management & Specialist Operations Technical White BME Total unknown The highest proportion of BME staff exists within the academic staff group at 8.6%. The academic sector average is 13.9% of the workforce There is a smaller proportion of BME staff within the Administrative (2.5%) and Operational (2.7%) groups; however both groups have seen a small rise in ethnicity from last year which was 2.2% and 2.6% respectively. This trend can, in part, be explained by the fact that academic staff are drawn from a larger, more diverse recruitment pool, from the regional, national and international job markets. In contrast the operational and administrative job families draw from a geographically more local recruitment pool, which is less ethnically diverse. However, the ethnicity rates for these two groups are still below that of the local area The management & specialist group has the lowest ethnicity rate; this may be attributed to the relatively small size of the group (286 staff) and the low turnover rate thus offering less opportunity to enhance the diversity within that group. Page 6 of 24

7 Shortlisting Rate 1.2 ETHNICITY AND RECRUITMENT Applicant monitoring offers a useful indication of the relative performance of white and BME applicants through the various stages of the recruitment and selection process. The table below illustrates the proportions of white and BME applicants and the success rates of each group at shortlisting and appointment stages over the last 6 years. Fig 4- Recruitment by Ethnicity Year BME Applicants BME Shortlisting BME Success Rate 26 (3.7%) 33 (3.9%) 21 (2.8%) 35 (2.2%) 21 (1.9%) 17 White Applicants White Shortlisting White Success Rate 145 (6.0%) 137 (4.1%) 185 (4.1%) 315 (4.6%) (22.5%) (12.0%) (77.5%) (16.3%) (20.2%) (12.8%) (79.8%) (14.0%) (14.3%) (11.7%) (85.7%) (13.3%) (18.8%) (10.4%) (81.2%) (16.4%) (16.1%) (10.9%) (83.9%) (18.2%) (4.3%) (15.9%) (13%) (1.8%) (81.4%) (22.2%) (5.4%) Note: BME and White applicants do not total 100% as there are 161 (2.7%) of applicants with no ethnicity data on file The overall number of applications in 2014/15 has reduced from 2013/14 in both BME and White; however, the proportion of applications across both groups has remained broadly the same. Fig 5- Recruitment Shortlisting Rate by Ethnicity % Shortlisting Rate by Ethnicity 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% White BME 5.0% 0.0% Figure 5 shows that there is a significant difference in shortlisting rate by ethnicity. This difference has continued to grow since 2012/13 and now shows variation of 9%. Page 7 of 24

8 Success Rate Fig 6- Recruitment Success Rates by Ethnicity Recruitment Success Rate by Ethnicity 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% White BME The success rate of BME applicants has remained about the same from last year at 1.8%, however, the success rate of White applicants has increased slightly to 5.4%, resulting in a variation of 3.6% Action: The University will undertake further analysis of BME recruitment trends in greater details across job families and service areas and an action plan will be developed. 1.3 ETHNICITY AND STAFF TURNOVER The figures below illustrate the staff retention profile by ethnicity. This figure comprises substantive staff who left on a voluntary basis only. Those leaving due to the end of a fixed term contract or dismissal are excluded from these figures Total leavers in 2014/5 were 124 staff (compared to 102 in the previous year). In 2014/5 the University had an overall staff turnover rate of 5.6% (compared to 4.9% in and 7.5% in ) Fig 8 Leavers by Ethnicity 2014/ % 80.0% Workforce and Leavers Profile by Ethnicity 91.1% 90.9% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 5.6% 5.0% 3.3% 4.1% Leavers % Workforce Profile % White BME Not Known Page 8 of 24

9 Turnover % Fig 9- BME Turnover details 2014/ /14 Ethnicity Leavers Workforce Profile Turnover Turnover White % 4.7% BME % 7.4% Unknown % 6.8% All Staff % 4.9% Fig 8 and Fig 9 show that turnover for BME staff is slightly higher than overall University turnover and turnover for the White staff group. Fig 10- Turnover Trend by ethnicity % 12% Staff Turnover by Ethnicity % 13.20% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 6.20% 5% 4% 3.80% 3.20% 6.50% 3.80% 4.10% 4.70% 7.40% 6.4% 5.6% White BME 0% Staff turnover within the White staff group remains reasonably consistent over the years, whereas the BME staff turnover is erratic. This is due to the smaller numbers of BME staff (i.e. due to the smaller numbers of BME staff, even small groups of leavers represent a significant percentage of the BME staff group), and can be explained, in part, by the mobility of international staff. In 2012/13, for example, where there was a sharp increase in BME turnover, over half of the leavers (7 out of 13) were international staff. Action: The University will continue to monitor turnover of BME staff and investigate increases where necessary. We will also plan to attract more applicants form the BME community including the use of positive action initiatives and networking. Page 9 of 24

10 Axis Title SECTION 2- GENDER 2.1 WORKFORCE PROFILE BY GENDER Overall 62% of the workforce are female and 38% are male. These figures are consistent with the previous year. The gender distribution differs across each of the job families and service areas and these are explored further in the report. The sector benchmark shows that within higher education 54% of staff are female and 46% male. Fig 11- Staff Gender by Job Family 100% 80% 52.1% 60% 40% 20% 47.9% 0% Academic Staff Gender Profile by Job Family 59.8% 40.2% Managerial and Specialist 83.6% 16.4% 28.7% 71.3% 63.5% 36.5% Administrative Technical Operational Female % Male % The Academic job family has a broadly even gender distribution. For the Managerial and Specialist Group the gender split is broadly reflective of the workforce averages for the University as a whole The job family in which there is the greatest gender imbalance is within the administrative job family. This remains consistent with the 2013/14 report with men being underrepresented in this group. Women are similarly underrepresented in the technical job family. Within these two job families, established and historical gender bias exists. This results in established career choices for men and women, and subsequently impacts on recruitment trends in these areas The Operational job family has a greater proportion of women than men though this has shifted from 71% women in 2013/14 to 64% in 2014/15. Over half the posts in this group are domestic assistant roles which have traditionally been occupied by women. However, as the data suggests there is some movement in this historical position with more men employed in domestic roles than in the past. Page 10 of 24

11 Fig 12- Workforce profile by gender and service area 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 68.2% 61.7% 31.8% 38.3% Faculty of Health Staff Gender Profile by Service Area Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences 48.6% 51.4% Faculty of Natural Sciences 62.9% 37.1% Univeristy Administration Female % Male % There is a higher proportion of women across all areas of the University, with the exception of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, which has a higher proportion of men. The proportion of men is about the same as the previous report which showed a proportion of 52.3% men The University is taking proactive measures to tackle gender inequality in the Science, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) disciplines particularly, through the Athena SWAN charter. For example through workshops to advise on routes and requirements for successful promotion and the provision of the Aurora and Springboard development courses. 2.2 RECRUITMENT PROFILE BY GENDER The table overleaf illustrates the proportion of applicants, shortlisted and successful candidates by gender, according to service area, and overall throughout the University. Women represent 60% of applicants which is comparable to the workforce profile and is the same as in 2013/ The differential between men and women, from shortlisting to appointment shows that the rates are similar throughout all service areas, though slightly in favour of women. Page 11 of 24

12 Fig 13- Number of Applicants and success rate by gender and service area Female Female Female Male Male Success Applicants Shortlisting Applicants Shortlisting Rate Faculty of Health Faculty of Humanities & Social Science Faculty of Natural Sciences University Administration University Overall 921 (63.5%) 525 (44.5%) 394 (54.6%) 1471 (60.0%) 3311 (57.1%) 243 (26.4%) 96 (18.3%) 73 (18.5%) 362 (24.6%) 774 (23.4%) 64 (6.9%) 20 (3.8%) 21 (5.3%) 87 (5.9%) 192 (5.8%) 529 (36.5%) 655 (55.5%) 328 (45.4%) 979 (40.0%) 2491 (42.9%) 110 (20.8%) 72 (11.0%) 46 (14.0%) 202 (20.6%) 430 (17.3%) Male Success Rate 19 (3.6%) 10 (1.5%) 9 (2.7%) 46 (4.7%) 84 (3.4%) 2.3 RETENTION PROFILE BY GENDER The proportion of leavers by gender compared to the overall workforce is about the same indicating that the level of turnover between genders is broadly equal at 5.5% for women (76 of 1374) and 5.7% for men (48 of 839) Fig 14- Retention by Gender Workforce and Retention Profiles by Gender 80% 62% 61% 60% 40% 38% 39% 20% Male Female 0% Workforce Profile Leavers Figure 15- Gender Turnover Details 2014/ /14 Leavers Workforce Profile Turnover Turnover Male % 3.7% Female % 5.7% All Staff % 4.9% Page 12 of 24

13 SECTION 3- DISABILITY PROFILE 3.1 WORKFORCE PROFILE BY DISABILITY The proportion of the Keele Workforce with a declared disability is 3.7%. The sector benchmark from ECU Statistics 2015 is 4.2%, therefore Keele s proportion of disabled staff is a little below the sector average, however it should be noted that the sector average has increased in the last year from 3.9% The 2013/14 E&D staff profile reported staff disability at 3.54% and 2012\13 at 3.08%, therefore there has been a small increase in the proportion of staff with a declared disability over the past 3 years Staff are encouraged to disclose information on disability, however, disability status is automatically logged on the system as not disabled unless the individual indicated otherwise either at recruitment or via the employee self-service system. 3.6% of staff have made a conscious decision to decline to provide this particular information. It should be noted that the largest proportions of those who declined to provide information are from within the Operational, and Technical staff groups. Fig 16- Staff Disability Profile by job family 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Staff Disability Profile by job family 93.4% 94.0% 93.4% 89.3% 93.1% 3.6% 3% 3.6% 4.9% 3.3% 7% 2% 5% 2% 2.0% Academic Administrative Managerial and Specialist Operational Technical Not-Disabled % Disabled % Data Declined Page 13 of 24

14 3.2 RECRUITMENT PROFILE BY DISABILITY Fig 17. Disabled Recruitment Applicants and success rate Nondisabled Year Non- Disabled Apps Non- Disabled Shortlisting Success rate Disabled apps Disabled Shortlisting (96.9%) (15.0%) (5.6%) (3.1%) (15.3%) (95.9%) (13.5%) (4.2%) (4.1%) (17.0%) (94.8%) (12.4%) (3.9%) (5.2%) (16.5%) (95.5%) (14.9%) (4.2%) (4.5%) (13.5%) (95.0%) (16.9%) (4.0%) (5.0%) (15.1%) (93.2%) (20.9%) (4.9%) (4.8%) (18.7%) Note: Total applicants do not total 100% as there are 135 (2.0%) of applicants with no disability data on file. Disabled Success Rate 3 (3.1%) 5 (2.9%) 9 (3.2%) 15 (4.0%) 7 (2.0%) 3 (1.1%) The proportion of disabled applicants has remained broadly at the same level over the past 6 years The shortlisting success rates between disabled and non-disabled applicants remain broadly comparable. This supports the University s commitment to the disability two ticks scheme which guarantees an interview to disabled applicants who meet the essential criteria for the post However, the success rate for applicants with a disability has reduced since 2013/14 and there appears to be a downward trend, with the exception of 2012/13. Action: HR will monitor this situation and consider what action might be taken to improve the success rate for disabled candidates including, where possible, identifying potential barriers to success Page 14 of 24

15 Fig 18. Shortlisting Success by Disability Profile 25.0% 20.0% Shortlisting by Disability 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% Non Disabled Disabled 0.0% Fig. 19 Recruitment Success Rate by Disability Profile Success Rate by Disability 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Non Disabled Disabled Figures 18 and 19 illustrate that while shortlisting rates for disabled and non-disabled candidates are comparable, the success rate for disabled candidates has declined over the last couple of years. Page 15 of 24

16 3.3 RETENTION PROFILE BY DISABILITY Figures 20 and 21 illustrate the profile of leavers who have declared a disability compared to the overall workforce turnover rate of 5.6% in 2014/15 and show a higher rate of turnover in the disabled staff group (6.2%). However, the numbers within the group are very small and represent only 5 leavers It is noteworthy that the turnover of staff with a refused disability declaration is high in comparison to turnover for staff for whom disability status is known Turnover for 2014/15 compared to HESA return data for 2013/14 shows similar turnover levels within each group. Fig 20- Workforce and retention profiles by disability 2014/ /14 Leavers Workforce Profile Turnover Turnover Non-Disabled % 4.7% Disabled Data Refused All Staff % 6.0% % 11.1% % 4.9% Figure 21 shows the disability workforce profile compared to the disability leavers profile to show a comparison of trends. Fig 21- Staff Disability Profile and retention 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Workforce and Leavers Profiles by Disability 92.7% 88.7% 3.7% 4.0% 3.7% Workforce Profile Leavers 7.3% Non Disabled Disabled Data Unknown Action: HR will investigate exit data gained for leavers with a declared disability, including declared reason for leaving and destination, to ascertain the reason for higher turnover within this group. Page 16 of 24

17 SECTION 4- AGE PROFILE 4.1 WORKFORCE PROFILE BY AGE Fig 22- Workforce Profile by age Staff Age Profile 30.0% 26.2% 24.0% 24.7% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 14.3% 6.2% 3.8% 0.8% The University workforce age profile has remained relatively stable, though there has been a small increase in the proportion of younger and older (50+) staff from 2013/ There has been an increase in age group from 0.28% to 0.8% staff in the last year. Age group has also seen an increase in the past year from 12.5% to 14.3% Compared to the sector average (see Fig. 23), the University age profile remains broadly comparable with slightly larger representation in the over 45 age groups compared to lower representation of year olds. The age profile is impacted by a range of factors including the relative mobility of different age groups, along with natural ageing of the workforce. Page 17 of 24

18 Fig 23-Age Overview across the sector 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Keele Workforce Age Profile and Sector Comparison Keele Sector Sector data from ECU Equality in HE Statistical Report Further analysis of age has been undertaken by job family and service area which can be compared to the overall workforce profile. Fig 24- Age Profile by Job Family Staff Age Profile by Job Family Technical 1.0% 23.8% 26.7% 6.9% 23.8% 11.9% 5.9% Operational 2.4% 20.9% 17.4% 21.8% 25.6% 6.5% 5.3% Managerial and Specialist 2.8% 29.7% 35.0% 25.9% 5.6% 1.0% Administrative 0.9% 22.0% 22.9% 25.8% 19.3% 6.5% 2.5% Academic 7.6% 24.4% 30.6% 27.7% 5.1% 4.5% 64+ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The age profile varies across the University job families. The Academic and Managerial & Specialist job families have a smaller proportion of younger age groups. These two job families span the higher grades of the University grading structures and require significant levels of knowledge and experience which are generally developed over time. Consequently there is a lower representation of younger staff in these categories. Page 18 of 24

19 4.1.6 In the 64+ category the Managerial & Specialist and Administration job families have a lower representation, with very small numbers choosing to work beyond the former ordinary retirement age (1% and 2.5% respectively) compared with Academic, Technical and Operational groups where the proportion of staff working beyond age 64 are 4.5%, 5.9% and 5.3% respectively. Fig 25-Age Profile by service area Staff Age Profile by Service Area Administration 1.3% 18.3% 22.2% 23.6% Natural Sciences 11.2% 25.9% 24.6% HUMSS 5.7% 24.3% 29.3% Health 0.8% 14.7% 25.7% 29.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% The age profiles of the various service areas are generally in line with the overall University age profile. There are, however, some small variations in the Faculties of Humanities and Social Sciences and Natural Sciences which have no staff in the age group and a lower proportion of staff in the age group than the workforce profile In both Humanities & Social Sciences and Natural Sciences the proportion of both year olds is higher than the overall distribution. This trend continues from the previous reporting year and will be attributable to the pre-existing age profile across these two faculties and turnover In the University Administration, there is a higher proportion of the under 30 age group, compared with the overall University distribution. This is likely to represent the number of entry level administrative roles available The age distribution of the workforce is influenced by a range of factors, including relative stability of the recruitment market and turnover, variety of job roles and grades and opportunities for progression. Page 19 of 24

20 4.2 RECRUITMENT PROFILE BY AGE Fig 26- Number of Applicants and Success rate by Age Profile Age Group Applicants Shortlisting Rate Success Rate AGE (2.8%) (15.2%) (3.7%) AGE (38.5%) (17.0%) (4.0%) AGE (27.9) (20.3%) (4.7%) AGE (17.2%) (26.3%) (5.8%) AGE (10.7%) (25.8) (6.0%) AGE (0.8%) (33.3%) (4.4%) AGE (0.3%) (6.3) Figure 26 shows that the majority of applications are received from the and age groups, however, they have a slightly lower appointment success rate compared to those aged In contrast, the and age groups have a lower application proportion and a higher appointment success rate The success rate begins to decline again for age groups over The proportions and success rates of applicants by age group is broadly similar to 2013/14 and show similar trends The following table shows the proportion of applications, shortlisted and successful applicants by age group and the success rate for each age group across the university. Fig 27- Recruitment monitoring by age (University Wide) Age Group Application proportions Shortlisting proportions Appointment proportions AGE % % 6 2.1% AGE % % % AGE % % % AGE % % % AGE % % % AGE % % 2 0.7% AGE % 1 0.1% 0 0.0% UNKOWN % % 7 2.5% TOTAL Page 20 of 24

21 4.3 RETENTION PROFILE BY AGE Fig 28- Workforce and Retention Profile by Age Workforce and Leavers Profile by Age 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Workforce % 0.8% 14.3% 24.0% 26.2% 24.7% 6.2% 3.8% Leavers % 0.0% 25.0% 26.6% 25.0% 17.7% 0.0% 5.6% Figure 28 shows that there is a higher rate of turnover compared to workforce profile for the age group and a slight difference in the age groups. This may be indicative of a higher level of career mobility, where development and career change are more apparent and opportunities available. The University recognises that this is part of a natural trend in career development Page 21 of 24

22 SECTION 5- ADDITIONAL PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS During 2012, the University commenced recording the following protected characteristics Gender identity Religion or belief Sexual Orientation Given the limited amount of data disclosed in relation to the additional characteristics, ECU Statistics do not provide a sector comparison of staff proportions. Instead, this report will focus on disclosure rates and trends from previous profile reports. 5.1 GENDER IDENTITY The table below illustrates the number of completed records against gender identity. The response was to the question: Is your gender identity the same as assigned at birth? Fig 29- Workforce Profile and Gender Identity Is your gender the same as that at birth? Number of staff % of staff population As a % of respondents No 3 0.1% 0.3% Yes % 94.4% Prefer Not to Say % 5.3% DISCLOSURE % - No Data Recorded % Disclosure rates in gender identity have increased from 36.8% in 2013/14 to 40% in 2014/15 which is a positive increase and highlights the increased use of the new Keele People employee self-service The number of staff declaring a positive response has increased from 2 to 3 staff members (0.1%). The UK government estimates that 0.01% of the population identifies as transgender. The reported higher than average proportion of staff disclosing a gender identity different to the gender they were assigned at birth suggests there may have been some issues with data collection, e.g. the question could have been phrased in a way that led to confusion among participants The proportion of respondents who declined to give information has reduced from 6.4% in 2013/14 to 5.3% in 2014/15. Following best practice guidance provided by Stonewall Prefer not to say, should be counted as a recorded answer, and is different from data not recorded. A change in the proportion of staff refusing to provide information can be monitored as a performance indicator Further work to educate/engage staff in disclosing their gender identity information is necessary. Page 22 of 24

23 5.2 SEXUAL ORIENTATION Fig 30- Workforce Profile and Sexual orientation Number of Sexual Orientation staff % of staff population As a % of respondents Bisexual 7 0.3% 0.6% Gay Man % 1.4% Gay woman/lesbian 8 0.4% 0.7% Heterosexual % 85.7% Prefer Not to Say % 11.7% DISCLOSURE % - No Data Recorded % Disclosure rates in sexual orientation have increased from 36.7% in 2013/14 to 52.9% in 2014/15 which is a very positive increase The number of staff declaring themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual has remained the same as last year at 2.4% as a percentage of respondents Of those who provided data 11.7% declined to give information, a decrease from 15.9% in 2013/14 and a positive indicator of a culture that supports disclosure Since sexual orientation has not routinely been reported, there is no sector benchmarking data against which to compare these figures. Government estimates are that 6-9% of the UK population identify as LGB The University will continue to promote the use of employee self-service, and the introduction of Keele People to increase the number of employees prepared to provide sexual orientation monitoring data. In addition, the University will draw on expertise as a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions programme, participate in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index annually and continue to support the LGBT+ Staff Network. Page 23 of 24

24 5.3 RELIGION OR BELIEF Fig 31- Workforce Profile and Religion or Belief Religion Number of staff % of staff population As a % of respondents Jewish 2 0.1% 0.2% Sikh 4 0.2% 0.3% Buddhist 8 0.4% 0.6% Hindu 7 0.3% 0.6% Muslim % 0.9% Spiritual % 1.0% Christian % 50.2% Any other religion or belief % 1.4% No religion % 34.5% Prefer Not to Say % 10.3% DISCLOSURE % - No Data Recorded % Disclosure rates in religion or belief have increased from 36.8% in 2013/14 to 56.4% in 2014/15 which is a large increase Of the total respondents 89.7% were prepared to provide an answer, a slight increase from 87.2% in 2013/ There has been no significant change in the proportion of religion or belief declarations with the majority of respondents identified as Christian or No religion Page 24 of 24