STAFF EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY PROFILE REPORT 2015/16

1. Introduction STAFF EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY PROFILE REPORT 2015/16 1.1. The annual Staff Equality and Diversity Profile Report 2015/16 has been developed alongside the Equality and Diversity Annual Report 2015/16, and the Student Equality and Diversity Profile Report 2015/16. 1.2. This report comprises an analysis of all of the University s substantive staff groups for the period 1st August 2015 to 31st July 2016. It provides a snapshot of the core representation and participation of the University s 2295 staff at the year-end, along with applicant monitoring information, by ethnicity (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME)), gender, disability and age, in relation to the University s workforce profile and its recruitment and retention activities and outcomes. In addition, monitoring data on religion and belief, sexuality and gender identity are presented. 1.3. Benchmarking information in the report is drawn from the HeidiPlus database, which is based on HESA data, for the academic year 2015/16 (published 31 March 2017). 1.4. The annual Equality Challenge Unit Statistical Report 2016 (published January 2017) 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. 1.6. The University is committed to achieving its vision by working towards greater transparency and to the publication of equality information through its annual equality and diversity reports. Page 1 of 28

2. Summary of Report 2.1. 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, Managerial and Specialist, Administrative, Technical, and Operational. 2.2. Where relevant, staff information is presented and analysed by service area. The service areas comprise three faculties: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences and Faculty of Natural Sciences, abbreviated in tables to FHumSS, FMHS and FNS. The work of the six Directorates is presented and classified as University Administration (and abbreviation to UAdmin). 2.3. The following summary outlines the headline staff equality information as it applies to the workforce profile, recruitment (applicants, shortlisted and successful candidates), and retention. Workforce profile 2.4. An overview of the 2295 staff members by equality characteristics indicates Keele has an overall BAME staff profile of 5.8%, which is lower than the sector average (11.8%), but is consistent with the demographic data for the local area. The academic job group has national and international reach and this is reflected by a higher proportion of BAME staff (9.7%). 2.5. The Keele workforce is 62% female; 38% male, and, compared to the sector average of 54% female, women are over-represented. Variations in gender representation occur by job family and service area. The Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences has the highest female representation. 2.6. Staff with declared disabilities represent 4.5% of the workforce, in line with the sector average of 4.6%. 2.7. The majority of Keele s workforce is represented across the 3 age groups: 30-39, 40-49 and 50-59. Keele has a lower representation of staff in the 16-19 and 20-29 age groups. This reflects the prerequisite for further study and experience across a number of groups/roles, the stability of the workforce and an ageing workforce. There is lower representation of staff aged 60 and over due to retirement. Page 2 of 28

Recruitment 2.8. Numbers of applications from BAME candidates continue to be low, the University received 1032 applications from BAME candidates representing 18.39% of all applications. The differential in the success rate of BAME candidates (3.6%) compared with white candidates (7%) has decreased since 2014-15 when only 1.8% of BAME candidates were successful in comparison to 5.4% of white candidates. We recognise that further work needs to be done to understand why a differential remains. Detailed work on staff and student ethnicity will be carried out as part of the Race Equality Charter. 2.9. The University attracts a higher proportion of female candidates to vacancies across all areas (average of 54.3% female) and women make up a greater proportion of the successful candidates (average of 63.3% female). Further detailed work on gender, in particular addressing female underrepresentation at higher grades, is carried out as part of the Athena SWAN charter. 2.10. The proportion of disabled applicants (5.9%) has increased by 1.4% compared with 2014/15. The success rate of candidates with a declared disability was 5.2% of applicants, slightly below the success rate of those who had declared no disability (6.4%). Important positive action activity is undertaken as part of the Disability Confident scheme. 2.11. Age data shows that the majority of applications come from the 20-29 and 30-39 age groups. Those applicants in the youngest categories 16-19 and 20-29 have lower success rates than other age categories. Retention 2.12. The University had an average voluntary leaver turnover of 6.1%, during the reporting period, a slight increase from the previous year of 5.6%. Low turnover at Keele may be a limiting factor to increasing diversity of the workforce. The sector s voluntary turnover is 8.1% 1. 2.13. Turnover within the BAME staff group was low in this period (3.8%) compared with white staff (6.5%). 1 DLA Piper HR Performance Indicator 2015 Survey Page 3 of 28

2.14. A larger proportion of women left the University compared with men in the period (turnover rates: 6.6% from the female group and 5.2% from the male group). 2.15. Eight staff members who had declared a disability left the organisation in the reporting period indicating a slight increase in turnover to 7.7%. This is higher than the turnover (6.0%) for those staff who have reported having no disability. However, given the small number of staff involved this is not deemed to be statistically significant. 2.16. Turnover by age group is highest for the categories 20-29 and 30-39, reflecting greater career mobility in these groups. 3. Actions Arising from this Report 3.1. 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 action statements and stating our commitment to equality and diversity in recruitment advertisements to tackle areas of under representation highlighted within the University. 3.2. 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 self-service. We will continue to highlight to staff the importance of data disclosure in assessing the workforce and identifying areas for action. 3.3. The LGBT staff network will be asked to continue to promote the value of providing equality data. Our commitment to improving our ranking on Stonewall s Workplace Equality Index, will provide a focus for us to work on specific issues relating to LGBT e.g. anti-bullying and harassment. 3.4. 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, and SPRE guidance and training. 3.5. 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 Page 4 of 28

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. 3.6. The University will continue to use 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. 3.7. This report notes that we are now in line with the sector average for the proportion of staff who have a declared disability. The University is committed to continue to take positive action in relation to disabled staff within the areas of information disclosure and recruitment. To support this, HR will take further action in line with the Disability Confident standards. 3.8. The University will continue to act upon its commitment to race equality by taking measures to increase applicants from the BAME community and to reduce the difference in success rates between White and BAME candidates during the recruitment process. Further action planning will be carried out as part of our commitment to the Race Equality Charter as a basis for improving the representation, progression and success of minority ethnic staff and students within higher education. 3.9. The University will continue to act upon its commitment to gender equality through the Equality Challenge Unit s Athena SWAN Charter: recognising advancement of gender equality: representation, progression and success for all. This report, together with an analysis of issues underpinning the gender pay gap, highlights the need to continue actions to increase recruitment of women at higher grades and promotion of women to higher grades. However, the under-representation of men at lower grades may also require consideration. 4. Action Required of the University Executive Committee 4.1. Members of UEC are asked to: Review the detail of the report and approve the content for publication. Page 5 of 28

SECTION 1- Ethnicity 1.1 Workforce Profile By Ethnicity Compared to Sector and Local Benchmark Data Table 1: Overall BAME Profile Keele Staff HESA Benchmark 2015/6 (% of known ethnicity) Keele Benchmark Group 2015/16 2 BAME White Unknown 3.7% (2.6% declined 5.8% 90.5% to give information; 1.1% declared unknown) 11.8% 81.7% 6.5% 10.3% 82.5% 7.2% 1.1.1 There has been a small increase in the percentage of BAME staff at Keele from 2014/15 (up from 5.0%). However, BAME proportions of staff remain low compared to the sector and Keele Benchmark group averages. It should be noted that the sector and benchmarking group have shown a steady increase in BAME representation in recent years (a decade earlier, BAME staff represented 8.6% of the sector and 6.6% of the benchmarking group staff). 1.1.2 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. Table 2: 2011 local area census data Total population BAME % White % Stoke-on-Trent 249,008 11.4 88.6 Newcastle-under-Lyme 123,871 5.0 95.0 Stafford 130,869 5.0 95.0 Staffordshire Moorlands 97,106 1.3 98.7 1.1.3 Although there is variation across the region, the total percentage BAME population for the local area is 7%. The BAME 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-under-Lyme area. 2 The Keele benchmark group that is used, is List A (like universities with medical schools) as researched by Prof O Neill (2017): Aberdeen, Dundee, Hull, Lancaster, Leicester, Sussex, Swansea and UEA. Page 6 of 28

% of Staff by Basic Ethnic Grouping 100% Figure 3: Workforce Ethnicity by Job Family 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Academic Administrative Managerial & Specialist Operational Technical TOTAL BAME 9.7% 2.6% 1.9% 4.3% 4.6% 5.8% White 86.0% 95.8% 96.5% 89.9% 89.8% 90.6% Unknown 4.3% 1.6% 1.6% 5.7% 5.6% 3.7% 1.1.4 The highest proportion of BAME staff exists within the academic staff group at 9.7%. This is lower than the academic sector average of 13.4% of the workforce (15.5% in the benchmarking group). 1.1.5 There is a smaller proportion of BAME staff within the Administrative (2.6%) and Operational (4.3%) groups. The BAME representation within the administrative group shows no change from last year but representation in the operational staff group has increased from 2.7%. 1.1.6 Academic staff are drawn from a larger, more diverse recruitment pool, from 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. 1.1.7 The managerial & specialist group has the lowest representation of BAME staff and this has decreased further from last year by 0.5%. This represents a net loss of one individual who identified as BAME within this group. There has also been a slight decrease (by 0.4%) in representation of BAME staff within the technical group, due to a net increase of 7 people in this group who identify as white. These are the two smallest job families (311 Managerial and specialist staff; 108 technical staff). Page 7 of 28

% of applicants shortlisted by ethnicity 1.2 Ethnicity and Recruitment 1.2.1 Applicant monitoring offers a useful indication of the relative performance of White and BAME applicants through the various stages of the recruitment and selection process. Table 4 illustrates the proportions of White and BAME applicants and the success rates of each group at shortlisting and appointment stages over the last 6 years. Table 4: Recruitment by Ethnicity 2009-2015 Academic Year BAME White Applicants Shortlist Recruited Applicants Shortlist Recruited No. %(a) No. %(b) No. %(c) No. %(a) No. %(b) No. %(c) 2009-10 700 22.5% 84 12.0% 26 3.7% 2407 77.5% 393 16.3% 145 6.0% 2010-11 843 20.2% 108 12.8% 33 3.9% 3321 79.8% 465 14.0% 137 4.1% 2011-12 755 14.3% 88 11.7% 21 2.8% 4510 85.7% 598 13.3% 185 4.1% 2012-13 1583 18.8% 165 10.4% 35 2.2% 6827 81.2% 1118 16.4% 315 4.6% 2013-14 1106 16.1% 121 10.9% 21 1.9% 5762 83.9% 1048 18.2% 250 4.3% 2014-15 933 15.9% 121 13.0% 17 1.8% 4792 81.4% 1066 22.2% 259 5.4% 2015-16 1032 18.9% 163 15.8% 37 3.6% 4281 78.3% 1036 24.2% 300 7.0% Note: BAME and White applicants do not total 100% as some applicants have no data recorded / have declined to give this information. In 2015/16, 152 applicants declined to provide ethnicity data, with 28 of those going on to be shortlisted and 5 recruited. The percentages shown above refer to (a) the percentage of applicants by ethnicity (b) the percentage of applicants by ethnic grouping that are shortlisted and (c) the percentage of applicants by ethnic grouping that are recruited. 1.2.2 The proportions of BAME and White applicants have remained at a similar level and are broadly in line with national representation. 30.0% 25.0% Figure 5: Shortlisting Rate by Ethnicity 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% White 0.0% Academic Year BAME 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 White 16.3% 14.0% 13.3% 16.4% 18.2% 22.3% 24.2% BAME 12.0% 12.8% 11.7% 10.4% 10.9% 13.0% 15.8% Page 8 of 28

% of applicants recruited by ethnicity 1.2.3 Figure 5 (above) shows that there is a significant difference in shortlisting rate by ethnicity. This difference in shortlisting rate by ethnicity in 2015/16 was 8.4%; this is an improvement on 2014/15, when there was a difference of 9.3%. In 2014/15 White applicants were 1.7 times more likely to be shortlisted; in 2015/16 this reduced marginally to a factor of 1.5. 8.0% Figure 6: Recruitment Success Rate by Ethnicity 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% White 1.0% 0.0% BAME Academic Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 White 6.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.6% 4.3% 5.4% 7.0% BAME 3.7% 3.9% 2.8% 2.2% 1.9% 1.8% 3.6% 1.2.4 The success rate of BAME applicants has doubled from 1.8% to 3.6% and the success rate of White applicants also increased from 5.4% to 7.0%, i.e. there has been a reduction in the difference in success rates. However, further work is required to address inequalities across the University. 1.3 Ethnicity and Staff Turnover 1.3.1 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, retirement or dismissal are excluded from these figures. 1.3.2 Voluntary leavers in 2015/16 totalled 139 (compared to 124 in the previous year). In 2015/6, the University had an overall voluntary staff turnover of 6.1% (compared to 5.6% in 2014/5, 4.9% in 2013/4 and 7.5% in 2012/3). 1.3.3 Figure 7 shows that, in 2015/16, 3.6% of leavers identified as BAME and 96.4% identified as white, compared to the workforce profile of 5.8% BAME and 90.5% white. Page 9 of 28

% Turnover by Ethnicity 100.0% Figure 7: Workforce and Leavers Profile by Ethnicity 2015/6 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Leavers % Workforce Profile % BME 3.6% 5.8% White 96.4% 90.5% Unknown 0.0% 3.7% 1.3.4 Table 8 and Figure 9 show that, in 2015/16 turnover for BAME staff was proportionally lower than turnover for the White staff group. Table 8: BAME Turnover details Ethnicity 2015/16 2014/15 Leavers Workforce Profile Turnover Turnover BAME 5 133 3.8% 6.4% White 134 2077 6.5% 5.6% Unknown 0 85 0.0% 4.4% All Staff 139 2295 6.1% 5.6% 1.3.5 Staff turnover within the White staff group shows an upward trend since 2010-11 (Figure 9); whereas the BAME staff turnover is more variable. This is due, in part, to the smaller numbers involved. In addition, the BAME staff group are composed of a greater proportion of international staff; who often have higher mobility. In 2012/13, for example, where there was a sharp increase in BAME turnover, over half of the leavers (7 out of 13) were international staff. Page 10 of 28

Turnover % 14.00% Figure 9: Staff Turnover by Ethnicity 2008-2016 12.00% 10.00% BME White 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Academic Year 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-3 2013-4 2014-5 2015-6 BME 6.20% 5% 11.80% 6.50% 13.20% 7.40% 6.4% 3.80% White 4% 3.80% 3.20% 3.80% 4.10% 4.70% 5.6% 6.50% 1.4 Actions 1.4.1 Further action planning will be carried out as part of the Equality Challenge Unit s Race Equality Charter work, with the aim of improving the representation, progression and success of minority ethnic staff. 1.4.2 As part of the Race Equality Charter, the University will analyse the recruitment success of BAME candidates across the University and develop positive actions to improve representation. 1.4.3 The need to enhance BAME representation in the Managerial and Specialist group, in particular, has been identified, and we will carry out targeted recruitment campaigns to increase applications from BAME candidates. Page 11 of 28

% of Staff by Gender 2.1 Workforce Profile by Gender SECTION 2- Gender 2.1.1 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 (52% within the benchmarking group). 100% Figure 10: Staff Gender Profile by Job Family 90% 80% 52.9% 70% Female % Male % 59.5% 63.4% 27.8% 60% 83.2% 50% 40% 30% 72.2% 47.1% 20% 40.5% 36.6% 10% 16.8% 0% Academic Administrative Managerial & Specialist Operational Technical 2.1.2 The Academic job family is nearly 53% female (academic workers in the sector are 45% female; 42% female in the benchmarking group). 2.1.3 For the Managerial and Specialist Group the gender split (59.5% female and 40.5% male) is broadly reflective of the workforce averages for the University as a whole and is only slightly higher than the non-academic professionals category for the sector (57% female) and benchmarking group (56% Female). 2.1.4 The job family in which there is the greatest gender imbalance (83% female) is within the administrative job family. This remains consistent with the 2014/15 report, and earlier. Male underrepresentation in this group is consistent with the sector average (81% female). Women are similarly underrepresented in the technical job family. Within these two job families, established and historical gender bias exists. This Page 12 of 28

results, in part, from established career choices for men and women, and subsequently impacts on recruitment trends in these areas. 2.1.5 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 and 63% in 2015/16. 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. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 11: Staff Gender Profile by Work Area Female % 62.2 37.8 Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences 47.1 52.9 Faculty of Natural Sciences 67.9 62.9 32.1 37.1 Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences The Univeristy Administration Male % 2.1.6 Figure 11 indicates that 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. There has been no notable change in gender representation in the faculties or the University Administration in recent years. 2.1.7 The University is taking proactive measures to tackle gender inequality through the Athena Swan Charter, in particular at senior levels where women are significantly under-represented. Initiatives includes workshops to advise on routes and requirements for successful promotion and the provision of the Aurora and Springboard development courses. Page 13 of 28

Staff Headcount % who are female Staff Headcount % who are female 300 Figure 12: Academic Staff, below Senior Lecturer (or equivalent), by Gender 100% 250 200 150 100 50 0 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 01/12/2010 01/12/2011 01/12/2012 01/12/2013 01/12/2014 01/12/2015 F 222 241 226 246 262 291 M 152 142 152 165 162 183 %F 59% 63% 60% 60% 62% 61% Academic staff at lecturer, researcher and teaching fellow grades (i.e. below grade 9) Figure 13: Academic Staff at Senior Lecturer (or eqivalent), Reader and Professor by Gender 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 01/12/2010 01/12/2011 01/12/2012 01/12/2013 01/12/2014 01/12/2015 F 87 89 91 91 90 98 M 159 155 159 173 166 162 %F 35% 36% 36% 34% 35% 38% Academic staff at senior lecturer, senior research fellow, senior teaching fellow, reader and professorial grades (i.e. grade 9 and above). Page 14 of 28

2.1.8 Figures 12 and 13 indicate the difference in the gender profile between academic job grades below Senior Lecturer (or equivalent) and the higher grades. At 1 st December 2015, women comprised 61% of the academic staff below grade 9 but only 38% of those above grade 9. At professorial levels this drops further to 29%. 2.2 Recruitment Profile by Gender 2.2.1 Table 14 illustrates the proportion of applicants, shortlisted and successful candidates by gender, according to service area, and overall throughout the University. Women represent 54% of applicants, which is lower than our workforce profile (62% female) and is in line with the sector as a whole (54% female). 2.2.2 The differential between men and women, from application to shortlisting and appointment would appear to favour female candidates. This differential has decreased slightly since 2014/15.The percentage of those who are female at shortlisting is 62% and this increases slightly to 63% at appointment. 2.2.3 The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences has the largest differential between the genders at recruitment with only 2.2 % of male candidates being recruited compared with 6.9% of female candidates. This could be investigated further at a Faculty level. Table 14: Number of Applicants and success rate by gender and service area Work Area Female Male Applicants Shortlist Recruits Applicants Shortlist Recruits No. %(a) No. %(b) No. %(c) No. %(a) No. %(b) No. %(c) FHumSS 404 43.9% 80 19.8% 28 6.9% 497 54.0% 65 13.1% 11 2.2% FMHS 979 63.9% 251 25.6% 72 7.4% 544 35.5% 110 20.2% 36 6.6% FNS 334 41.0% 85 25.4% 23 6.9% 474 58.2% 81 17.1% 21 4.4% UAdmin 1251 56.9% 346 27.7% 93 7.4% 938 42.7% 202 21.5% 57 6.1% Total 2968 54.3% 762 25.7% 216 7.3% 2453 44.9% 458 18.7% 125 5.1% Note: Female and male applicants do not total 100% as some applicants have no data recorded / have declined to give this information. In 2015/16, 44 applicants refused gender data, with 7 of those going on to be shortlisted and 1 recruited. The percentages in columns refer to (a) the percentage of applicants by gender (b) the percentage of applicants by gender that are shortlisted and (c) the percentage of applicants by gender that are recruited. 2.3 Retention Profile by Gender 2.3.1 The proportion of leavers by gender compared to the overall workforce was higher for women than men in 2015/16 (6.6% of women and 5.2% of men), Table 16. 2.3.2 The leaver profile (Figure 15) shows that a higher proportion of women leave compared to the workforce profile. Page 15 of 28

80% Figure 15: Workforce and Retention Profiles by Gender Male Female 70% 60% 62% 67% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 38% 33% 0% Workforce Profile Leavers Table 16: Gender Turnover Details 2015/16 2014/15 Female Male All Staff Leavers Workforce Profile Turnover Turnover 93 1418 6.6% 5.5% 46 877 5.2% 5.7% 139 2295 6.1% 5.6% 2.4 Actions 2.4.1 Actions taken to address gender inequality have included; gender positive advertising, dedicated training and mentoring provision, promotions workshops and ensuring balanced representation on interview panels. 2.4.2 Further work will be undertaken around communications, the application of flexible working arrangements and research support for those returning from periods of family leave. 2.4.3 Comprehensive career development support for professional services staff is now in train and will be fully implemented from September 2017. Page 16 of 28

% of Staff Group 3.1 Workforce Profile by Disability SECTION 3 - Disability Profile 3.1.1 In the period there were 104 staff members at Keele with a declared disability. The proportion of the Keele Workforce with a declared disability is 4.5%, similar to the sector average (4.6%) and slightly below the benchmarking group (5.1%). 3.1.2 Recent Keele E&D staff profile reports indicated lower proportions of disability (3.7% in 2014/15, 3.5%, in 2013/14 and 3.1% in 2012/13). 3.1.3 Staff are encouraged to disclose information on disability. However, disability status is automatically logged on the system as no disability unless the individual indicated otherwise either at recruitment or via the employee self-service system. 3% of staff have made a conscious decision to decline to provide this particular information. From Figure 17, it can be noted that the largest proportions of those who declined to provide information are from within the Operational, and Technical staff groups. 100% 80% Figure 17: Staff Disability Profile by Job Family 60% 40% 20% 0% Academic Administrati ve Managerial and Specialist Operational Technical Disablity 4.5% 4.6% 5.8% 3.9% 3.7% No Disablity 92.8% 93.8% 93.2% 89.9% 91.7% Data Declined 2.7% 1.6% 1.0% 6.2% 4.6% Page 17 of 28

% of Applicant s Shortisted 3.2 Recruitment Profile by Disability Table 18: Application, Shortlisting and Recruitment by Disability Declaration Year Disability declared No disability declared Applicants Shortlist Recruits Applicants Shortlist Recruits No. %(a) No. %(b) No. %(c) No. %(a) No. %(b) No. %(c) 2009-10 98 2.9% 15 15.3% 3 3.1% 3037 89.8% 456 15.0% 169 5.6% 2010-11 171 4.0% 29 17.0% 5 2.9% 4017 93.5% 542 13.5% 167 4.2% 2011-12 278 5.1% 46 16.5% 9 3.2% 5059 93.2% 628 12.4% 198 3.9% 2012-13 378 4.4% 51 13.5% 15 4.0% 8042 93.5% 1200 14.9% 337 4.2% 2013-14 344 5.0% 52 15.1% 7 2.0% 6491 93.1% 1096 16.9% 261 4.0% 2014-15 267 4.5% 50 18.7% 3 1.1% 5484 93.2% 1145 20.9% 270 4.9% 2015-16 324 5.9% 79 24.4% 17 5.2% 5000 91.5% 1127 22.5% 320 6.4% Note: The sum of those with and without a disability does not total 100% due to those who have refused to give this information. In 2015/16, 141 applicants refused disability data, with 21 of those going on to be shortlisted and 5 recruited. The percentages in columns refer to (a) the percentage of applicants by disability (b) the percentage of applicants by disability / no disability grouping that are shortlisted and (c) the percentage of applicants by disability / no disability grouping that are recruited. 3.2.1 The proportion of applicants with a declared disability (5.9%) has increased by 1.4% compared with 2014/15. 3.2.2 The shortlisting success rates between applicants remain broadly comparable regardless of whether a disability has been declared or not. This is reflective of the University s commitment to the Disability Confident scheme under which the University guarantees an interview to all applicants with a declared disability who meet the essential criteria for the post. 30% Figure 19: Shortlisting by Disability 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Academic Year 0% 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 No Disability 15.0% 13.5% 12.4% 14.9% 16.9% 20.9% 22.5% Disability 15.3% 17.0% 16.5% 13.5% 15.1% 18.7% 24.4% Page 18 of 28

% of Applicants who are Successful 3.2.3 The success rate for applicants with a disability has increased since 2014/15 but remains below that for other candidates (5.2% of applicants with a declared disability are successful compared with 6.4% of applicants who declared no disability). 8% 7% Figure 20: Success Rate by Disability 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% Academic Year 0% 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 No Disability 5.6% 4.2% 3.9% 4.2% 4.0% 4.9% 6.4% Disability 3.1% 2.9% 3.2% 4.0% 2.0% 1.1% 5.2% 3.3 Retention Profile by Disability 3.3.1 Table 21 and Figure 22 illustrate the profile of leavers who have declared a disability compared to the overall workforce turnover rate of 6.1% in 2015/16 and show a higher rate of turnover in the disabled staff group (7.7%). However, the numbers within the group are very small and represent only 8 leavers. Table 21: Workforce and retention profiles by disability 2015/16 2014/15 Leavers Workforce Profile Turnover Turnover Disabled 8 104 7.7% 6.2% Non-Disabled Unknown (data refused) All Staff 127 2122 6.0% 5.4% 4 69 5.8% 11.1% 139 2295 6.1% 5.6% 3.3.4 Figure 22 shows that a slightly higher proportion of leavers (5.8%) had declared a disability compared to the University s workforce profile (4.6%). Page 19 of 28

% of Staff 100% 90% 80% 70% Figure 22: Workforce and Leavers Profiles by Disability 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Workforce Profile Leavers Disablity 4.6% 5.8% No Disablity 92.5% 91.4% Unknown 3.0% 2.9% 3.4 Actions 3.4.1 The University has committed to being a Level 1 Disability Confident employer; displaying the logo prominently on our recruitment webpages; ensuring applicants who meet the minimum requirements are offered an interview and encouraging staff to declare disabilities. 3.4.2 The University provides support to staff who declare a disability and offer annual support meetings with HR and their line manager. We provide disability equality awareness training to all staff in the mandatory Keele Welcome Programme and an online Introduction to Reasonable Adjustments training course is also available. 3.4.3 The staff disability network will be relaunched, in order to help identify areas in which we can enhance our policies, practices, services and improve the accessibility of our campus. We will actively work to increase the number of applications from disabled candidates and review our recruitment processes to ensure they are inclusive and accessible. Page 20 of 28

% of Staff % of Staff 4.1 Workforce Profile by Age SECTION 4- Age Profile Figure 23: Staff Age Profile 30.0% 25.0% 25.6% 25.7% 24.4% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 13.5% 6.4% 3.7% 0.7% 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-63 64+ Age Band 4.1.1 The University workforce age profile has remained relatively stable, with a fairly even distribution of staff aged between 30 and 59. 4.1.2 There has been a small decrease in age group 20-29 (by 1.2%) and slight increase in the 30-39 age group (by 1.6%), since 2014/15. 16% 14% Figure 24: 2015/16 Keele Workforce Age Profile and Sector Comparison 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Age Group: Under 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40 41 to 45 46 to 50 51 to 55 56 to 60 61 to 65 Keele 5.22% 10.14% 13.02% 11.26% 12.82% 14.38% 13.26% 11.70% 6.09% 2.10% Sector 5.8% 11.0% 14.6% 13.3% 12.8% 13.0% 12.3% 9.7% 5.3% 2.2% 66 + Sector data from HESA (HeidiPlus database) Page 21 of 28

% by Agge Group 4.1.3 The University age profile remains broadly comparable to the sector average (Figure 24), with slightly larger representation in the over 45 age groups and lower representation of 31-40 year olds. It should be noted that the sector mode is age group 31-35 and this has been apparent since 2011-12. Whilst Keele has a peak at this age group the mode is the age group 46-50. 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. Low turnover at Keele may be an influencing factor of this profile (see section 4.3). 4.1.4 Further analysis of age has been undertaken by job family, Figure 25, and service area, Figure 26, which can be compared to the overall workforce profile. 40% 35% 30% 25% Figure 25: Distribution of Staff by Age within Job Roles Academic Administrative Managerial & Specialist Operational Technical Total 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-63 64+ Age Group 4.1.5 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. 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 (less than 2% in both cases) compared with Academic, Operational and Technical groups where the proportion of staff working beyond age 64 are 4.0%, 5.7% and 7.4% respectively. Page 22 of 28

% by Age Group 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% Figure 26: Distribution of Staff by Age by Work Area HumSS FNS FMHS Uadmin Total 10% 5% 0% 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-63 64+ Age Grouping 4.1.7 The age profiles of the various service areas are generally in line with the overall University age profile. However, there are some small variations in the Faculties of Humanities and Social Sciences and Natural Sciences. Humanities and Social Sciences have no staff in the 16-19 age group and both Humanities and Social Sciences and Natural Sciences have a lower proportion of staff in the 20-29 age group than the workforce profile. 4.1.8 The Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences has the lowest proportion of staff aged 60 and over and the youngest average age of the faculties. One explanation for the younger average age is that the Faculty has more than half of the University s fixed term contract staff. However, other factors might contribute to the differences. 4.1.9 In the University Administration and Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, 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 in these areas and Business Administration apprenticeships within the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. 4.1.10 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. 4.2 Recruitment Profile by Age 4.2.1 Figure 27 and Table 28 show that the majority of applications are received from the 20-29 and 30-39 age groups. Page 23 of 28

% within Age Category 4.2.2 The age groups 30 63 have the greatest recruitment success with between 6.6 and 7.8% of applicants being recruited. The younger age groups have lower success: 3.1% of 16-19 year old applicants are recruited and 5.2% of 20-29 years old applicants are recruited. There are very few applicants for posts in the 64+ age group. Hence, the 5.6% success rate is not necessarily indicative of a drop-off in the success rate for this group. 4.2.4 The proportions and success rates of applicants by age group would indicate an increase in the relative success of those aged 30-39 compared with 2014/15. 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% Figure 27: Application, Shortlist and Appointment Proportions by Age Profile Applications Shortlist Appointments 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% AGE 16-19 AGE 20-29 AGE 30-39 AGE 40-49 AGE 50-59 AGE 60-63 AGE 64 + Age Category Table 28: Recruitment monitoring by age (University Wide) Age Group Applicants Shortlist Recruits No. %(a) No. %(b) No. %(c) Age 16-19 130 2.4% 18 13.8% 4 3.1% Age 20-29 1798 32.9% 313 17.4% 94 5.2% Age 30-39 1638 30.0% 391 23.9% 117 7.1% Age 40-49 1086 19.9% 284 26.2% 76 7.0% Age 50-59 637 11.7% 178 27.9% 42 6.6% Age 60-63 77 1.4% 24 31.2% 6 7.8% Age 64 + 18 0.3% 4 22.2% 1 5.6% Unknown 81 1.5% 15 18.5% 2 2.5% TOTAL 5465 100% 1227 22.5% 342 6.3% Note: Those who have refused to give this information are listed in the row entitled Unknown. The percentages in columns refer to (a) the percentage of applicants by age group (b) the percentage of applicants by age grouping that are shortlisted and (c) the percentage of applicants by age grouping that are recruited. Page 24 of 28

4.3 Retention Profile by Age Figure 29: Workforce and Leavers Profile by Age 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-63 64+ Workforce % 0.7% 13.5% 25.6% 25.7% 24.4% 6.4% 3.7% Leavers % 1.4% 25.9% 29.5% 19.4% 19.4% 2.2% 2.2% 4.3.1 Figure 29 shows that there is a higher rate of turnover compared to workforce profile for youngest three 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. 4.4 Actions 4.4.1 The University has established effective apprenticeship arrangements supported by PM Training (Aspire) and will continue to monitor these and to undertake further work to ensure an age supportive and accessible campus. In addition, we will consult key groups on improving age diversity within the University. 4.4.2 We will provide support to staff and managers in relation to retirement planning through the promotion of flexible working options, building manager capacity and providing wellbeing and support initiatives. We will also review age as part of broader intersectionality issues. Page 25 of 28

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 5.1.1 Table 30, 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? Table 30: Workforce Profile and Gender Identity No. of Is your gender the same as that at birth? staff % of staff population % of respondents No 5 0.2% 0.5% Yes 972 42.4% 94.7% Prefer Not to Say 49 2.1% 4.8% Total who have answered question 1026 44.7% - No Data Recorded 1269 55.3% - 5.1.2 Disclosure rates in gender identity have increased from 40% in 2014/15 to 44.7% in 2015/16 which is a positive increase and highlights the increased use of the new Keele People employee self-service. The disclosure rate for those institutions that reported data to HESA was 40.6%. Hence, Keele has slightly higher reporting rates than other institutions. A number of institutions have not reported gender identity to HESA and overall, gender identity information was unknown for 72.1% of all staff working in higher education. i 5.1.3 The number of staff declaring a positive response has increased from 3 to 5 staff members (0.2%). The UK government estimates that 0.01% of the population identifies as transgender. ECU report (from HESA data) that 0.1% of staff have stated that their gender identity is different to that at birth. 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. 5.1.4 The proportion of respondents who declined to give information has reduced from 5.3% in 2013/14 to 4.8% in 2015/16. Following best practice guidance provided by Stonewall Prefer not to say, should be counted as a recorded answer, and is Page 26 of 28

different from data not recorded. A change in the proportion of staff refusing to provide information can be monitored as a performance indicator. 5.1.5 Further work to educate/engage staff in disclosing their gender identity information is necessary. 5.2 Sexual Orientation Table 31: Workforce Profile and Sexual Orientation Sexual Orientation No. of staff % of staff population % of respondents Bisexual 16 0.7% 1.0% Gay Man 16 0.7% 1.0% Gay woman/lesbian 15 0.7% 1.0% Heterosexual 1326 57.8% 86.5% Prefer Not to Say 160 7.0% 10.4% Total who have answered question 1533 66.8% - No Data Recorded 762 33.2% - 5.2.1 Disclosure rates in sexual orientation have increased from 52.9% in 2014/15 to 66.8% in 2015/16 which is a very positive increase and exceeds the sector (40.2%). 5.2.2 The number of staff declaring themselves as gay has remained the same as last year. However, the number of staff declaring bisexual or gay woman / lesbian sexualities has doubled (the increase in the bisexual category is from 7 staff members to 16 and from 8 staff members to 15 in the gay woman/lesbian category). 5.2.3 Of those who provided data 10.4% declined to give information, a decrease from 11.7% in 2014/15 and a positive indicator of a culture that supports disclosure. 5.2.4 Sexual orientation data has only been reported since 2012, there is no reliable sector benchmarking data against which to compare these figures. Government estimates are that 6-9% of the UK population identify as LGB. HESA data for last year indicates that of those who gave responses (including prefer not to say ), 3% of staff indicated an LGB orientation (as at Keele). 5.2.5 The University will continue to promote the use of employee self-service, and 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 27 of 28

5.3 Religion or Belief Table 32: Workforce Profile and Religion or Belief Religion No. of staff % of staff population % of respondents Jewish 2 0.1% 0.1% Sikh 5 0.2% 0.3% Buddhist 9 0.4% 0.6% Hindu 10 0.4% 0.6% Spiritual 15 0.7% 1.0% Muslim 18 0.8% 1.2% Any other religion or belief 19 0.8% 1.2% Information refused 143 6.2% 9.2% No religion 586 25.5% 37.8% Christian 742 32.3% 47.9% Total who have answered question 1549 67.5% - No Data Recorded 746 32.5% - 5.3.1 Disclosure rates in religion or belief have increased from 36.8% in 2013/14 to 56.4% in 2014.15 and 67.5% in 2015/16. 5.3.2 Of the total respondents 90.8% were prepared to provide an answer, a slight increase from 89.7% in 2014/15 and 87.2% in 2013/14. 5.3.3 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. i Equality in higher education: staff statistical report 2016 Page 28 of 28