staff annual diversity report 2012 (incorporating equality ... · staff annual diversity report...

Staff Annual Diversity Report 2012

Version 1.0

Last amended: September 2012

Equality & Diversity


(Incorporating Equality Information for publication under the Equality Act

2010)

of 95

Contents

The University of Nottingham’s Commitment to Diversity ................................................... 4

Purpose .................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of monitoring – key trends and issues ............................................................ 4

Profile ................................................................................................................... 4

Recruitment ........................................................................................................... 4

Recognition and reward ........................................................................................... 5

Diversity Data and Trends .............................................................................................. 6

Employee Profile ........................................................................................................ 6

Gender .................................................................................................................. 6

Ethnicity ................................................................................................................ 7

Disability ............................................................................................................... 9

Age ..................................................................................................................... 10

Mode of Employment – Full/Part-time ......................................................................... 11

Gender ................................................................................................................ 12

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 13

Disability ............................................................................................................. 15

Age ..................................................................................................................... 16

Contract Status ........................................................................................................ 17

Gender ................................................................................................................ 18

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 19

Disability ............................................................................................................. 21

Age ..................................................................................................................... 22

Level ...................................................................................................................... 23

Gender ................................................................................................................ 24

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 25

Disability ......................................................................................................... - 27 -

Occupational Staff Group .......................................................................................... 31

Gender ................................................................................................................ 32

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 34

Disability ............................................................................................................. 36

Age ..................................................................................................................... 38

Senior Research and Teaching Posts ........................................................................... 40

Gender ................................................................................................................ 40

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 41

Disability ............................................................................................................. 42

Age ..................................................................................................................... 43

Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 44

Gender ................................................................................................................ 44

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 45

Disability ............................................................................................................. 47

Activity/Performance Review ..................................................................................... 48

Gender ................................................................................................................ 48

Contract Status .................................................................................................... 49

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 50

Disability ............................................................................................................. 50

Position in Salary Range ........................................................................................ 52

Promotions .............................................................................................................. 53

Applicants Grade .................................................................................................. 54

Age Band ............................................................................................................. 55

Gender ................................................................................................................ 55

Contract Type....................................................................................................... 56

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 56

Disability ............................................................................................................. 57

Re-grading .............................................................................................................. 58

Gender ................................................................................................................ 59

Disability ............................................................................................................. 59

Age ..................................................................................................................... 60

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 60

of 95

Training ..................................................................................................................... 60

Introduction: ........................................................................................................... 61

KPI: Monitoring and evaluation of relevant training to be published annually ................... 61

Overview ............................................................................................................. 61

Analysis ............................................................................................................... 61

Total Attendance ...................................................................................................... 62

Breakdown by job family ....................................................................................... 62

Breakdown by Gender ........................................................................................... 65

Breakdown by Age ................................................................................................ 65

KPI2: Monitoring attendance at development programmes by job family, gender, and age 67

Total Attendances ................................................................................................. 67

Breakdown by job family ....................................................................................... 67

Breakdown by Age ................................................................................................ 70

Other KPIs .............................................................................................................. 72

Recruitment & selection training for Managers .......................................................... 72

Positive action programmes ................................................................................... 72

Appendix One .......................................................................................................... 73

Appendix Two .......................................................................................................... 74

Employee Case Work Analysis ....................................................................................... 76

Introduction, Methodology & Overall Analysis .............................................................. 76

Focus on Formal Disciplinary Proceedings .................................................................... 78

Focus on Grievances ................................................................................................. 88

Focus on Dignity Complaints ...................................................................................... 93

of 95


The University of Nottingham’s Commitment to Diversity

The University's aim is to attract, retain and motivate high quality individuals and to provide

equality of opportunity in order to maximise the benefit to the University from the diversity of

its workforce and student population. Diversity expresses itself in many ways - by age, gender,

race, culture, physical and mental ability, religion - and these differences are celebrated. We

aim to maximise everyone’s potential by harnessing these differences and creating a

productive environment in which all are valued; where our talents are fully utilised and organisational goals are achieved.

The University’s senior management team is committed to the diversity agenda. Head of

Schools and Departments have been working with Human Resources Advisers on the delivery of a number of diversity targets.

Purpose

In support of this commitment this report documents and summaries key trends in relation to

the University’s performance in the areas of equality and diversity, with an aim of highlighting

successes and informing the planning process to target areas where improvements should be

made. The report focuses on performance trends in four main areas:

University staff profile

Recruitment and selection

Staff recognition and reward

Staff promotion and re-grading

In addition to the trend data described above, this report also presents an opportunity to

summarise the main activities over the previous year and set out broad areas of activity

planned for the coming year (with detailed commitments and targets contained in the various

action plans associated with the equality schemes).

Summary of monitoring – key trends and issues

The detailed data can be found from page 7, but the key findings are:

Profile

There has been a slight increase in the overall number of people employed at the University,

but no major changes in the organisational profile. The university remains a particularly

popular employer for individuals identifying as Chinese/ Chinese British, with 3.3% of staff

identifying this way. This compares with only 0.6% of the Nottingham population (and 0.5% of

England’s) at the 2001 census.

There has been little progress towards increasing the number of declared disabled staff, which

remains significantly below the target of 4%.

Recruitment

Overall the pattern of recruitment is stable, despite the challenging economic climate. As in

previous years, the University appears to be an attractive employer for women, as application

rates remain high; however the success rates of BME and disabled candidates remains an issue

of concern.

of 95

Recognition and reward

Although the University hopes that the revised PDPR process will start to change some of the

outcomes of performance related pay, 2013 will be the first year in which new objective setting

and assessment processes will have an impact. As in previous years, the current point on the

scale appears to be the most significant correlation to whether an employee will receive an

‘automatic’ increment rather than any protected characteristic.

of 95

Diversity Data and Trends

Employee Profile

Employee profile figures are based on a 1st June census date. This is the latest point in the

academic year when sessional staff remain in post. Figures are given by headcount, unless

otherwise stated. Trends in the employee profile are considered over the last three years.

Gender

The graph below shows that the gender balance of the University is fairly even with the

University employing slightly more women than men. Over the last 3 years the University staff

numbers have continued to grow steadily whilst maintaining its equally balanced gender

distribution.

Gender Profile

Gender

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

Female 3,687 52% 3,759 53% 3,825 53%

Male 3,342 48% 3,386 47% 3,399 47%

Total 7,029 100% 7,145 100% 7,224 100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Employee Profile by Gender (Headcount)

Male

Female

of 95

Ethnicity

The ethnicity profile of the University continues to be representative of the Nottingham East

Midlands Area (comparable data taken from the 2001 Census).

The University population is largely white (85%) compared with (81%) for the wider

Nottingham area. However 3.6% of the university population has an unknown ethnicity.

Ethnicity Profile

Within the ethnic minority group the university population does have a significantly higher

representation of Chinese, Chinese British (25%) compared with a local comparative

population of (6%) This could be due to the international presence of the University in the

Chinese Asia region. All other Ethnic groups remain comparable with the local area however

Other and Mixed are slightly lower than their local comparator.

Ethnicity

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

White White 5,963 84.8% 6,017 84.2% 6,105 84.5%

Total 5,963 84.8% 6,017 84.2% 6,105 84.5%

Ethnic Minority Asian / Asian British 262 3.7% 294 4.1% 285 3.9%

Chinese / Chinese British 237 3.4% 246 3.4% 239 3.3%

Black / Black British 144 2.% 157 2.2% 158 2.2%

Mixed 79 1.1% 81 1.1% 78 1.1%

Other 76 1.1% 96 1.3% 96 1.3%

Total 798 11.4% 874 12.2% 856 11.8%

Not Known Not Known 268 3.8% 254 3.6% 263 3.6%

Total 268 3.8% 254 3.6% 263 3.6%

Total 7,029 100.% 7,145 100.% 7,224 100.%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2010 2011 2012

Employee Profile by Ethnicity (Headcount)

Not Known

Ethnic Minority

White

of 95

Ethnicity Profile

Ethnicity

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

Asian / Asian British 262 33% 294 34% 285 33%

Chinese / Chinese British 237 30% 246 28% 239 28%

Black / Black British 144 18% 157 18% 158 18%

Mixed 79 10% 81 9% 78 9%

Other 76 10% 96 11% 96 11%

Total 798 100% 874 100% 856 100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Employee Profile by Ethnic Minority (Headcount)

Other

Mixed

Black / Black British

Chinese / Chinese British

Asian / Asian British

of 95

Disability

Just fewer than 2% of University employees have declared a disability, showing a minor

increase from 2011. This is still some way short of the 2014/2015 target of 4% referenced in

the 2010-2015 University plan and therefore will require some focus over the coming years.

The University has show a slight improvement from 2011 in reducing the Unknown category

from 6.8% to 6.3%.

Disability Profile

Disability Status

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

Declared Disabled 129 1.8% 130 1.8% 138 1.9%

Declared Non-Disabled 6,397 91.% 6,531 91.4% 6,634 91.8%

Not Known 503 7.2% 484 6.8% 452 6.3%

Total 7,029 100.% 7,145 100.% 7,224 100.%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Employee Profile by Declared Disability (Headcount)

Not Known

Declared Non-Disabled

Declared Disabled

of 95

Age

The age profile of University employees continues to show a good balanced distribution

compared to the working population of the local area, As you would expect in an academic

environment 16-24 are underrepresented due to the complexity of the work performed by the

institution. However this proportion of under representation in one area is equally distributed

throughout the other age groups. Future changes in the retirement age legislation may see an

impact in the +65 category compared to previous years.

Age

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

16-24 192 3% 197 3% 224 3%

25-34 1,738 25% 1,711 24% 1,648 23%

35-44 1,990 28% 1,982 28% 2,010 28%

45-54 1,840 26% 1,974 28% 2,022 28%

55-64 1,215 17% 1,224 17% 1,238 17%

65+ 54 1% 57 1% 82 1%

Total 7,029 100% 7,145 100% 7,224 100%

Age Profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Employee Profile by Age (Headcount)

65+

55-64

45-54

35-44

25-34

16-24

of 95

Mode of Employment – Full/Part-time

The University recognises the needs of staff to balance their work commitments with that of

family, parental and other responsibilities. In order to remain competitive in the employment

market place the university has adopted a number of family-friendly policies that enable a

more flexible way of working for both the employer and employee to ensure it can maximise

the contribution from its workforce.

As a result of this commitment 29% of University’s workforce work part-time hours. This trend

has remained consistent over the last 3 years.

Mode

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

Full-Time 5,048 72% 5,096 71% 5,122 71%

Part-Time 1,981 28% 2,049 29% 2,102 29%

Total 7,029 100% 7,145 100% 7,224 100%

Mode of Employment Profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

Year

Employee Profile by Mode of Employment

Part-Time

Full-Time

of 95

Gender

Although flexible working arrangements are available to both male and female employees, as

with the majority of employers, flexible working arrangements are requested and worked in

the main by female employees. The proportion of part- time workers has remained the same

as in 2011 with a minimal change in the gender breakdown, 42% of women and 15% of men

work part-time.

Gender

Full-Time Part-Time

Total No. % No. %

2010 Female 2,189 59% 1,498 41% 3,687

Male 2,859 86% 483 14% 3,342

Total 5,048 72% 1,981 28% 7,029

2011 Female 2,212 59% 1,547 41% 3,759

Male 2,884 85% 502 15% 3,386

Total 5,096 71% 2,049 29% 7,145

2012 Female 2,227 58% 1,598 42% 3,825

Male 2,895 85% 504 15% 3,399

Total 5,122 71% 2,102 29% 7,224

Gender and Mode of Employment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Female, 2010

Female, 2011

Female, 2012

Male, 2010 Male, 2011 Male, 2012

Percen

tag

e

Gender, Year

Employee Profile by Mode of Employment and Gender

Part-Time

Full-Time

of 95

Ethnicity

Over the three year period, proportionally there has been no change in full-time / part-time

working in the minority ethnic employee population as a whole. However, a significantly

higher proportion of Black/Black British employees continue to work part-time than other

minority groups.

Ethnicity

Full-Time Part-Time

Total No. % No. %

2010 White White 4,289 72% 1,674 28% 5,963

Total 4,289 72% 1,674 28% 5,963

Ethnic Minority Asian / Asian British 195 74% 67 26% 262

Chinese / Chinese British 195 82% 42 18% 237

Black / Black British 61 42% 83 58% 144

Mixed 54 68% 25 32% 79

Other 57 75% 19 25% 76

Total 562 70% 236 30% 798

Not Known Not Known 197 74% 71 26% 268

Total 197 74% 71 26% 268

Total 5,048 72% 1,981 28% 7,029

2011 White White 4,291 71% 1,726 29% 6,017

Total 4,291 71% 1,726 29% 6,017




Mixed 54 67% 27 33% 81

Other 74 77% 22 23% 96

Total 616 70% 258 30% 874


Total 189 74% 65 26% 254

Total 5,096 71% 2,049 29% 7,145

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Ethnicity, Year

Employee Profile by Mode of Employment and Ethnicity

Part-Time

Full-Time

of 95

Ethnicity

Full-Time Part-Time

Total No. % No. %

2012 White White 4,323 71% 1,782 29% 6,105

Total 4,323 71% 1,782 29% 6,105




Mixed 51 65% 27 35% 78

Other 80 83% 16 17% 96

Total 608 71% 248 29% 856


Total 191 73% 72 27% 263

Total 5,122 71% 2,102 29% 7,224

Ethnicity and Mode of Employment

of 95

Disability

Proportionally more staff with a declared disability work part-time than the overall University

working population. The University continues to demonstrate the benefits of its flexible working

and reasonable adjustment policies in demonstrating that working commitments can be

balanced with individual’s personal needs.

Disability

Full-Time Part-Time

Total No. % No. %

2010 Declared Disabled 83 64% 46 36% 129

Declared Non-Disabled 4,609 72% 1,788 28% 6,397

Not Known 356 71% 147 29% 503

Total 5,048 72% 1,981 28% 7,029



Not Known 338 70% 146 30% 484

Total 5,096 71% 2,049 29% 7,145



Not Known 303 67% 149 33% 452

Total 5,122 71% 2,102 29% 7,224

Disability and Mode of Employment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Disability, Year

Employee Profile by Mode of Employment and Declared Disability

Part-Time

Full-Time

of 95

Age

Apart from the highest age group +65 where there is a significantly smaller data set, part-time

working is evenly distributed throughout the majority of age groups. The lowest proportion of

part-time employment occurs in the 25-34 age bracket at 21% where the majority of staff are

starting their careers. The trend shows that the proportions have remained consistent between

2010 and 2012.

Age and Mode of employment

Age Band

Full-Time Part-Time

Total No. % No. %

2010 16-24 116 60% 76 40% 192

25-34 1,410 81% 328 19% 1,738

35-44 1,432 72% 558 28% 1,990

45-54 1,293 70% 547 30% 1,840

55-64 781 64% 434 36% 1,215

65+ 16 30% 38 70% 54

Total 5,048 72% 1,981 28% 7,029

2011 16-24 104 53% 93 47% 197

25-34 1,372 80% 339 20% 1,711

35-44 1,428 72% 554 28% 1,982

45-54 1,388 70% 586 30% 1,974

55-64 791 65% 433 35% 1,224

65+ 13 23% 44 77% 57

Total 5,096 71% 2,049 29% 7,145

2012 16-24 110 49% 114 51% 224

25-34 1,299 79% 349 21% 1,648

35-44 1,462 73% 548 27% 2,010

45-54 1,420 70% 602 30% 2,022

55-64 808 65% 430 35% 1,238

65+ 23 28% 59 72% 82

Total 5,122 71% 2,102 29% 7,224

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Age Band, Year

Employee Profile by Mode of Employment and Age

Full-Time Part-Time

of 95

Contract Status

The contract status profile of the university shows that the proportion of permanent/indefinite

and fixed-term contracts has remained consistent for the last 3 years at around 80%

permanent and 20% fixed-term employees.

Contract Status

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

Fixed-Term 1,401 20% 1,411 20% 1,346 19%

Permanent 5,628 80% 5,734 80% 5,878 81%

Total 7,029 100% 7,145 100% 7,224 100%

Contract Status and Mode of Employment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Employee Profile by Contract Status

Permanent

Fixed-Term

of 95

Gender

The gender split of staff on fixed term contracts is equally distributed and has been for the last

3 years

Gender

Fixed-Term Permanent

Total No. % No. %

2010 Female 718 19% 2,969 81% 3,687

Male 683 20% 2,659 80% 3,342

Total 1,401 20% 5,628 80% 7,029

2011 Female 735 20% 3,024 80% 3,759

Male 676 20% 2,710 80% 3,386

Total 1,411 20% 5,734 80% 7,145

2012 Female 689 18% 3,136 82% 3,825

Male 657 19% 2,742 81% 3,399

Total 1,346 19% 5,878 81% 7,224

Gender and Contract Status

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Female, 2010

Female, 2011

Female, 2012

Male, 2010 Male, 2011 Male, 2012

Percen

tag

e

Gender, Year

Employee Profile by Contract Status and Gender

Permanent

Fixed-Term

of 95

Ethnicity

A significantly higher proportion of ethnic minority / unknown staff are employed on fixed-term

contracts compared to white employees. This reflects the higher use of fixed-term contracts

and higher number of employees from ethnic minority groups in research and teaching

occupations.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Ethnicity, Year

Employee Profile by Contract Status and Ethnicity

Permanent

Fixed-Term

of 95

Ethnicity


Total No. % No. %

2010 White White 1,034 17% 4,929 83% 5,963

Total 1,034 17% 4,929 83% 5,963




Mixed 22 28% 57 72% 79

Other 37 49% 39 51% 76

Total 255 32% 543 68% 798


Total 112 42% 156 58% 268

Total 1,401 20% 5,628 80% 7,029

2011 White White 1,037 17% 4,980 83% 6,017

Total 1,037 17% 4,980 83% 6,017




Mixed 19 23% 62 77% 81

Other 48 50% 48 50% 96

Total 290 33% 584 67% 874


Total 84 33% 170 67% 254

Total 1,411 20% 5,734 80% 7,145

2012 White White 1,010 17% 5,095 83% 6,105

Total 1,010 17% 5,095 83% 6,105




Mixed 17 22% 61 78% 78

Other 41 43% 55 57% 96

Total 251 29% 605 71% 856


Total 85 32% 178 68% 263

Total 1,346 19% 5,878 81% 7,224

Ethnicity and Contract Status

of 95

Disability

The proportion of declared disabled staff employed on a fixed-term basis has dropped from

32% in 2011 to 26%.

Disability


Total No. % No. %



Not Known 178 35% 325 65% 503

Total 1,401 20% 5,628 80% 7,029



Not Known 144 30% 340 70% 484

Total 1,411 20% 5,734 80% 7,145



Not Known 109 24% 343 76% 452

Total 1,346 19% 5,878 81% 7,224

Disability and Contract Status

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Disability, Year

Employee Profile by Contract Status and Declared Disability

Permanent

Fixed-Term

of 95

Age

A higher proportion of employees over 65 (38%) and employees aged 25-34 are employed on

a fixed-term basis (44%) than other age bands. In most age groups the proportion of

employees who are employed on a fixed-term basis was consistent. An exception to this is the

over 65 group where the data set is small and the numbers suggest that a significant

proportion of permanent employee retired between 2008 and 2009. Age 24-34 also marks the

period for the commencement of academic careers, particularly in research focussed roles

which also tend to be funded through short term grants from Research Councils.

Age and Contract Status

Age Band


Total No. % No. %

2010 16-24 66 34% 126 66% 192

25-34 782 45% 956 55% 1,738

35-44 314 16% 1,676 84% 1,990

45-54 132 7% 1,708 93% 1,840

55-64 82 7% 1,133 93% 1,215

65+ 25 46% 29 54% 54

Total 1,401 20% 5,628 80% 7,029

2011 16-24 65 33% 132 67% 197

25-34 764 45% 947 55% 1,711

35-44 326 16% 1,656 84% 1,982

45-54 155 8% 1,819 92% 1,974

55-64 72 6% 1,152 94% 1,224

65+ 29 51% 28 49% 57

Total 1,411 20% 5,734 80% 7,145

2012 16-24 63 28% 161 72% 224

25-34 723 44% 925 56% 1,648

35-44 312 16% 1,698 84% 2,010

45-54 157 8% 1,865 92% 2,022

55-64 60 5% 1,178 95% 1,238

65+ 31 38% 51 62% 82

Total 1,346 19% 5,878 81% 7,224

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Age Band, Year

Employee Profile by Contract Status and Age


of 95

Level

In general the number of staff at most levels in the organisation1 has continued to rise slightly,

between 2011 and 2012, with the overall grade distribution remaining very stable. Growth in

the overall number of employees over the three years has been approximately 2.8%.

Level 1 has enjoyed the highest increase in percentage terms, 7% over the three years. Levels

2 and 6 have reduced in actual numbers, but by very small amounts.

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

1 1,081 15% 1,113 16% 1,156 16%

2 832 12% 855 12% 840 12%

3 752 11% 774 11% 775 11%

4 1,761 25% 1,755 25% 1,794 25%

5 1,217 17% 1,259 18% 1,281 18%

6 666 9% 677 9% 665 9%

7 720 10% 712 10% 713 10%

Total 7,029 100% 7,145 100% 7,224 100%

Level Profile

1 Where an employee is not employed on a grade within the University levels the closest equivalent level has been allocated for the purposes of this report according to grade and/or salary. Level 4 includes level 4A and the level 4 training grades and level 5 includes the ‘Extended Lecturer Level 5’ grade.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

No

.

Level

Employee Profile by Level

2010

2011

2012

of 95

Gender

Although the overall proportions of female staff have remained the same as last year, the

gender profile by level within the organisation continues to show a decrease in the proportion

of female employees as the grade level increases. The University Plan 2010-2015 sets a target

of 33% of female staff in senior roles (levels 6 and 7) by 2014/2015. Although year on year

since 2009 the proportion of female staff at senior levels has shown small improvements, this

is an area where continued focus is required.

Level

Female Male

Total No. % No. %

2010 1 637 59% 444 41% 1,081

2 665 80% 167 20% 832

3 480 64% 272 36% 752

4 901 51% 860 49% 1,761

5 617 51% 600 49% 1,217

6 215 32% 451 68% 666

7 172 24% 548 76% 720

Total 3,687 52% 3,342 48% 7,029

2011 1 664 60% 449 40% 1,113

2 687 80% 168 20% 855

3 486 63% 288 37% 774

4 896 51% 859 49% 1,755

5 631 50% 628 50% 1,259

6 232 34% 445 66% 677

7 163 23% 549 77% 712

Total 3,759 53% 3,386 47% 7,145

2012 1 693 60% 463 40% 1,156

2 668 80% 172 20% 840

3 485 63% 290 37% 775

4 939 52% 855 48% 1,794

5 650 51% 631 49% 1,281

6 223 34% 442 66% 665

7 167 23% 546 77% 713

Total 3,825 53% 3,399 47% 7,224

Gender and Level Profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Level, Year

Employee Profile by Level & Gender

Female Male

of 95

Ethnicity

There continues to be a higher concentration of ethnic minority employees at levels 1 and 4

within the organisation than at the other levels. These anomalies are due to a large proportion

of black and black British staff in level 1 roles and a large proportion of Chinese / Chinese

British staff in Level 4 roles.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1, 2010

1, 2011

1, 2012

2, 2010

2, 2011

2, 2012

3, 2010

3, 2011

3, 2012

4, 2010

4, 2011

4, 2012

5, 2010

5, 2011

5, 2012

6, 2010

6, 2011

6, 2012

7, 2010

7, 2011

7, 2012

Percen

tag

e

Level, Year

Employee Profile by Level & Ethnic Minority

Other

Mixed




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1, 2010

1, 2011

1, 2012

2, 2010

2, 2011

2, 2012

3, 2010

3, 2011

3, 2012

4, 2010

4, 2011

4, 2012

5, 2010

5, 2011

5, 2012

6, 2010

6, 2011

6, 2012

7, 2010

7, 2011

7, 2012

Percen

tag

e

Level, Year

Employee Profile by Level & Ethnicity

Not Known

Ethnic Minority

White

of 95

Ethnicity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

2010 White White 873 15% 749 13% 661 11% 1,392 23% 1,055 18% 599 10% 634 11% 5,963

Total 873 15% 749 13% 661 11% 1,392 23% 1,055 18% 599 10% 634 11% 5,963

Ethnic Minority Asian / Asian British 24 9% 28 11% 37 14% 79 30% 48 18% 16 6% 30 11% 262

Chinese / Chinese British 30 13% 10 4% 11 5% 111 47% 39 16% 24 10% 12 5% 237

Black / Black British 82 57% 9 6% 9 6% 23 16% 13 9% 2 1% 6 4% 144

Mixed 18 23% 9 11% 5 6% 19 24% 18 23% 4 5% 6 8% 79

Other 9 12% 7 9% 3 4% 28 37% 10 13% 7 9% 12 16% 76

Total 163 20% 63 8% 65 8% 260 33% 128 16% 53 7% 66 8% 798

Not Known Not Known 45 17% 20 7% 26 10% 109 41% 34 13% 14 5% 20 7% 268

Total 45 17% 20 7% 26 10% 109 41% 34 13% 14 5% 20 7% 268

Total 1,081 15% 832 12% 752 11% 1,761 25% 1,217 17% 666 9% 720 10% 7,029

2011 White White 890 15% 767 13% 681 11% 1,376 23% 1,069 18% 602 10% 632 11% 6,017

Total 890 15% 767 13% 681 11% 1,376 23% 1,069 18% 602 10% 632 11% 6,017




Mixed 21 26% 9 11% 6 7% 17 21% 19 23% 5 6% 4 5% 81

Other 12 13% 8 8% 4 4% 40 42% 14 15% 9 9% 9 9% 96

Total 179 20% 66 8% 72 8% 284 32% 147 17% 62 7% 64 7% 874


Total 44 17% 22 9% 21 8% 95 37% 43 17% 13 5% 16 6% 254

Total 1,113 16% 855 12% 774 11% 1,755 25% 1,259 18% 677 9% 712 10% 7,145

2012 White White 935 15% 762 12% 675 11% 1,425 23% 1,082 18% 600 10% 626 10% 6,105

Total 935 15% 762 12% 675 11% 1,425 23% 1,082 18% 600 10% 626 10% 6,105




Mixed 20 26% 5 6% 5 6% 21 27% 19 24% 4 5% 4 5% 78

Other 9 9% 9 9% 5 5% 41 43% 17 18% 8 8% 7 7% 96

Total 171 20% 59 7% 77 9% 277 32% 151 18% 53 6% 68 8% 856


Total 50 19% 19 7% 23 9% 92 35% 48 18% 12 5% 19 7% 263

Total 1,156 16% 840 12% 775 11% 1,794 25% 1,281 18% 665 9% 713 10% 7,224

Ethnicity and Level

Page - 27 - of 95

Disability

Levels 1 and 4 have both the highest proportions of declared disabled staff and

the highest proportions of staff for whom disability status is unknown. The

proportion of staff with a disability at the higher levels is lower than at the lower

levels.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Level, Year

Employee Profile by Level & Disability

Not Known

Declared Non-Disabled

Declared Disabled

0.

0.5

1.

1.5

2.

2.5

3.

3.5

Percen

tag

e

Level, Year

Employee Profile by Level & Disability

Declared Disabled

Page - 28 - of 95

Level

Declared Disabled

Declared Non-Disabled Not Known

Total No. % No. % No. %

2010 1 33 3.1% 937 86.7% 111 10.3% 1,081

2 13 1.6% 765 91.9% 54 6.5% 832

3 13 1.7% 688 91.5% 51 6.8% 752

4 37 2.1% 1,565 88.9% 159 9.0% 1,761

5 17 1.4% 1,129 92.8% 71 5.8% 1,217

6 8 1.2% 630 94.6% 28 4.2% 666

7 8 1.1% 683 94.9% 29 4.0% 720

Total 129 1.8% 6,397 91.0% 503 7.2% 7,029

2011 1 35 3.1% 968 87.0% 110 9.9% 1,113

2 15 1.8% 786 91.9% 54 6.3% 855

3 12 1.6% 716 92.5% 46 5.9% 774

4 31 1.8% 1,580 90.0% 144 8.2% 1,755

5 19 1.5% 1,162 92.3% 78 6.2% 1,259

6 7 1.0% 642 94.8% 28 4.1% 677

7 11 1.5% 677 95.1% 24 3.4% 712

Total 130 1.8% 6,531 91.4% 484 6.8% 7,145

2012 1 35 3.0% 1,013 87.6% 108 9.3% 1,156

2 18 2.1% 773 92.0% 49 5.8% 840

3 13 1.7% 719 92.8% 43 5.5% 775

4 35 2.0% 1,641 91.5% 118 6.6% 1,794

5 19 1.5% 1,185 92.5% 77 6.0% 1,281

6 9 1.4% 630 94.7% 26 3.9% 665

7 9 1.3% 673 94.4% 31 4.3% 713

Total 138 1.9% 6,634 91.8% 452 6.3% 7,224

Disability and Level

Page - 29 - of 95

Age

The distribution of age within levels is representative of the experience required

at more senior roles (level 5 and above). Between levels 1 and 4 the distribution

of age within each level is more equal. In the main this distribution has remained

consistent over the last 3 years.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e

Level, Year

Employee Profile by Level & Age

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Page - 30 - of 95

Level 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total

2010 1 No. 107 174 210 306 281 3 1,081

% 10% 16% 19% 28% 26% 0% 100%

2 No. 36 231 218 199 144 4 832

% 4% 28% 26% 24% 17% 0% 100%

3 No. 16 219 197 197 122 1 752

% 2% 29% 26% 26% 16% 0% 100%

4 No. 28 767 494 293 171 8 1,761

% 2% 44% 28% 17% 10% 0% 100%

5 No. 1 279 497 300 136 4 1,217

% 0% 23% 41% 25% 11% 0% 100%

6 No. 35 247 245 123 16 666

% 5% 37% 37% 18% 2% 100%

7 No. 4 33 127 300 238 18 720

% 1% 5% 18% 42% 33% 3% 100%

No. 192 1,738 1,990 1,840 1,215 54 7,029

% 3% 25% 28% 26% 17% 1% 17%

2011 1 No. 114 192 194 328 281 4 1,113

% 10% 17% 17% 29% 25% 0% 100%

2 No. 37 235 209 213 158 3 855

% 4% 27% 24% 25% 18% 0% 100%

3 No. 14 216 214 200 128 2 774

% 2% 28% 28% 26% 17% 0% 100%

4 No. 27 732 496 332 161 7 1,755

% 2% 42% 28% 19% 9% 0% 100%

5 No. 263 530 319 143 4 1,259

% 21% 42% 25% 11% 0% 100%

6 No. 1 45 222 274 119 16 677

% 0% 7% 33% 40% 18% 2% 100%

7 No. 4 28 117 308 234 21 712

% 1% 4% 16% 43% 33% 3% 100%

No. 197 1,711 1,982 1,974 1,224 57 7,145

% 3% 24% 28% 28% 17% 1% 17%

2012 1 No. 144 195 193 334 274 16 1,156

% 12% 17% 17% 29% 24% 1% 100%

2 No. 37 217 200 230 147 9 840

% 4% 26% 24% 27% 18% 1% 100%

3 No. 10 214 229 187 127 8 775

% 1% 28% 30% 24% 16% 1% 100%

4 No. 32 713 514 357 169 9 1,794

% 2% 40% 29% 20% 9% 1% 100%

5 No. 239 540 335 162 5 1,281

% 19% 42% 26% 13% 0% 100%

6 No. 30 215 276 126 18 665

% 5% 32% 42% 19% 3% 100%

7 No. 1 40 119 303 233 17 713

% 0% 6% 17% 42% 33% 2% 100%

No. 224 1,648 2,010 2,022 1,238 82 7,224

% 3% 23% 28% 28% 17% 1% 17%

Age and level

of 95

Occupational Staff Group

The occupational groups for the University are represented as follows:

APM: Administrative, Professional & Managerial

C&M: Clinical & Medical-Related

CCS: Childcare Services

O&F: Operations & Facilities

R&T: Research & Teaching

TS: Technical Services

The occupational groups used are based on the University job families. Where a

member of staff is not in one of the job families, they have been allocated to the

most appropriate job family grouping or the clinical and medical-related staff

group. The largest occupational staff group is research and teaching with 44% of

staff, followed by administrative, professional and managerial staff, who

constitute 30%. The proportion of staff in these staff groups has remained

constant over the past three years. The proportion of staff in the other groups

has remained constant with only minor changes.

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

2 0%

APM 2,108 30% 2,133 30% 2,165 30%

C&M 219 3% 231 3% 214 3%

CCS 25 0% 26 0% 27 0%

O&F 972 14% 1,011 14% 1,056 15%

R&T 3,090 44% 3,113 44% 3,128 43%

TS 615 9% 631 9% 632 9%

Total 7,029 100% 7,145 100% 7,224 100%

Occupational Staff Group Profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Employee Profile by Occupational Staff Group

TS

R&T

O&F

CCS

C&M

APM

of 95

Gender

Whilst overall the University has an even gender balance, there are clear signs of

occupational segregation by gender with women representing three quarters of

Administrative, Professional and Managerial and 100% of Childcare Services

employees. Conversely, 71% of clinical and medical-related staff, 58% of

research and teaching staff and 62% of technical services employees are male.

The operations and facilities staff group is the most gender balanced with 52%

female and 48% male.

The gender balance in all areas has remained pretty consistent year on year over

the last 3 years.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

, 2012

APM

, 2010

APM

, 2011

APM

, 2012

C&

M, 2010

C&

M, 2011

C&

M, 2012

CCS, 2010

CCS, 2011

CCS, 2012

O&

F, 2010

O&

F, 2011

O&

F, 2012

R&

T, 2010

R&

T, 2011

R&

T, 2012

TS, 2010

TS, 2011

TS, 2012

Percen

tag

e

Occupational Staff Group, Year

Employee Profile by Occupational Staff Group & Gender

Male

Female

of 95


Female Male

Total No. % No. %

2010 APM 1,599 76% 509 24% 2,108

C&M 56 26% 163 74% 219

CCS 25 100% 25

O&F 494 51% 478 49% 972

R&T 1,277 41% 1,813 59% 3,090

TS 236 38% 379 62% 615

Total 3,687 52% 3,342 48% 7,029

2011 APM 1,625 76% 508 24% 2,133

C&M 66 29% 165 71% 231

CCS 26 100% 26

O&F 517 51% 494 49% 1,011

R&T 1,276 41% 1,837 59% 3,113

TS 249 39% 382 61% 631

Total 3,759 53% 3,386 48% 7,145

2012 2 100% 2

APM 1,628 75% 537 25% 2,165

C&M 63 29% 151 71% 214

CCS 27 100% 27

O&F 550 52% 506 48% 1,056

R&T 1,315 42% 1,813 58% 3,128

TS 242 38% 390 62% 632

Total 3,825 53% 3,399 47% 7,224

Gender and Occupational Staff Group

of 95

Ethnicity

There is also evidence of occupational segregation by ethnicity, with a

considerably higher proportion of ethnic minority staff in clinical and medical,

research and teaching and operations and facilities roles than in administrative,

professional and managerial or technical services roles. In all of the occupational

staff groups, the proportion of ethnic minority staff between 2010 and 2012

remains quite consistent.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

, 2012

APM

, 2010

APM

, 2011

APM

, 2012

C&

M, 2010

C&

M, 2011

C&

M, 2012

CCS, 2010

CCS, 2011

CCS, 2012

O&

F, 2010

O&

F, 2011

O&

F, 2012

R&

T, 2010

R&

T, 2011

R&

T, 2012

TS, 2010

TS, 2011

TS, 2012

Percen

tag

e


Employee Profile by Occupational Staff Group & Ethnicity

Not Known

Ethnic Minority

White

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

APM

, 2010

APM

, 2011

APM

, 2012

C&

M, 2010

C&

M, 2011

C&

M, 2012

CCS, 2010

CCS, 2011

CCS, 2012

O&

F, 2010

O&

F, 2011

O&

F, 2012

R&

T, 2010

R&

T, 2011

R&

T, 2012

TS, 2010

TS, 2011

TS, 2012

Pe

rce

nta

ge


Employee Profile by Occupational Staff Group & Ethnic Minority

Other

Mixed




of 95

Year and Ethnicity

APM C&M CCS O&F R&T TS

Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

2010 White White 1,944 33% 167 3% 23 0% 774 13% 2,522 42% 533 9% 5,963

Total 1,944 33% 167 3% 23 0% 774 13% 2,522 42% 533 9% 5,963

Ethnic Minority Asian / Asian British 72 27% 32 12% 1 0% 21 8% 110 42% 26 10% 262

Chinese / Chinese British 24 10% 2 1% 27 11% 175 74% 9 4% 237

Black / Black British 19 13% 5 3% 1 1% 83 58% 32 22% 4 3% 144

Mixed 18 23% 2 3% 14 18% 38 48% 7 9% 79

Other 8 11% 5 7% 7 9% 54 71% 2 3% 76

Total 141 18% 46 6% 2 0% 152 19% 409 51% 48 6% 798

Not Known Not Known 23 9% 6 2% 46 17% 159 59% 34 13% 268

Total 23 9% 6 2% 46 17% 159 59% 34 13% 268

Total 2,108 30% 219 3% 25 0% 972 14% 3,090 44% 615 9% 7,029

2011 White White 1,965 33% 172 3% 23 0% 800 13% 2,513 42% 544 9% 6,017

Total 1,965 33% 172 3% 23 0% 800 13% 2,513 42% 544 9% 6,017




Mixed 19 23% 2 2% 16 20% 38 47% 6 7% 81

Other 11 11% 5 5% 10 10% 68 71% 2 2% 96

Total 145 17% 53 6% 3 1% 163 19% 457 52% 53 6% 874


Total 23 9% 6 2% 48 19% 143 56% 34 13% 254

Total 2,133 30% 231 3% 26 0% 1,011 14% 3,113 44% 631 9% 7,145

2012 White White 1,998 33% 161 3% 23 0% 842 14% 2,535 42% 546 9% 6,105

Total 1,998 33% 161 3% 23 0% 842 14% 2,535 42% 546 9% 6,105




Mixed 14 18% 2 3% 1 1% 17 22% 39 50% 5 6% 78

Other 11 11% 4 4% 11 11% 68 71% 2 2% 96

Total 142 17% 46 5% 4 1% 161 19% 449 52% 54 6% 856


Total 26 10% 7 3% 53 20% 145 55% 32 12% 263

Total 2,166 30% 214 3% 27 0% 1,056 15% 3,129 43% 632 9% 7,224

Ethnicity and Occupational Staff Group

of 95

Disability

The largest proportion of declared disabled staff occurs in the operations and facilities and APM

staff groups at 2.6% and 2.3% respectively. There are no declared disabled staff in childcare

services roles. The proportion of staff for whom disability status is unknown is highest in the

childcare services, operations & facilities, research & teaching and technical services staff

groups, all of which have a high proportion of devolved recruitment practices.

0.

0.5

1.

1.5

2.

2.5

3.

APM, 2010

APM, 2011

APM, 2012

C&M, 2011

C&M, 2012

O&F, 2010

O&F, 2011

O&F, 2012

R&T, 2010

R&T, 2011

R&T, 2012

TS, 2010

TS, 2011

TS, 2012

Percen

tag

e


Employee Profile by Occupational Staff Group & Disability

Declared Disabled

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e


Employee Profile by Occupational Staff Group & Disability

Declared Disabled Declared Non-Disabled Not Known

of 95


Declared Disabled Declared Non-Disabled Not Known

Total No. % No. % No. %

2010 APM 44 2.1% 1,977 93.8% 87 4.1% 2,108

C&M 206 94.1% 13 5.9% 219

CCS 22 88.0% 3 12.0% 25

O&F 29 3.0% 839 86.3% 104 10.7% 972

R&T 49 1.6% 2,795 90.5% 246 8.0% 3,090

TS 7 1.1% 558 90.7% 50 8.1% 615

Total 129 1.9% 6,397 91.0% 503 7.2% 7,029

2011 APM 43 2.0% 2,002 93.9% 88 4.1% 2,133

C&M 1 0.4% 218 94.4% 12 5.2% 231

CCS 23 88.5% 3 11.5% 26

O&F 30 3.0% 877 86.7% 104 10.3% 1,011

R&T 48 1.5% 2,839 91.2% 226 7.3% 3,113

TS 8 1.3% 572 90.6% 51 8.1% 631

Total 130 1.8% 6,531 91.4% 484 6.8% 7,145

2012 2 100.0% 2

APM 50 2.3% 2,030 93.8% 85 3.9% 2,165

C&M 1 0.5% 200 93.5% 13 6.1% 214

CCS 24 88.9% 3 11.1% 27

O&F 27 2.6% 927 87.8% 102 9.7% 1,056

R&T 49 1.6% 2,880 92.1% 199 6.4% 3,128

TS 11 1.7% 571 90.3% 50 7.9% 632

Total 138 1.9% 6,634 91.8% 452 6.3% 7,224

Disability and Occupational Staff Group

of 95

Age

The youngest group is in childcare services where the age band with the largest proportion of

staff is 25 to 34 and 70% of staff are under 35. The APM and research & teaching staff groups

have the largest proportion of staff in the 35 to 44 age band with over 80% of staff aged

between 25 and 54. The clinical and medical-related, operations & facilities and technical

services staff groups have the highest proportion of staff in the 45 to 54 year old age band. In

clinical and medical-related and operations & facilities staff groups over three quarters of staff

are aged 35 to 64, whereas in technical services the age spread is wider with 22% of staff

aged 25 to 34. Across all occupational staff groups the proportion of 16 to 24 year olds has

remained constant over the last 3 years.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percen

tag

e


Employee Profile by Occupational Staff Group & Age

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

of 95


16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

2010 APM 56 3% 487 23% 643 31% 569 27% 349 17% 4 0% 2,108

C&M 18 8% 54 25% 91 42% 56 26% 219

CCS 5 20% 15 60% 3 12% 2 8% 25

O&F 78 8% 147 15% 202 21% 291 30% 253 26% 1 0% 972

R&T 30 1% 925 30% 943 31% 725 23% 422 14% 45 1% 3,090

TS 23 4% 146 24% 145 24% 162 26% 135 22% 4 1% 615

Total 192 3% 1,738 25% 1,990 28% 1,840 26% 1,215 17% 54 1% 7,029

2011 APM 45 2% 481 23% 640 30% 613 29% 346 16% 8 0% 2,133

C&M 20 9% 61 26% 92 40% 55 24% 3 1% 231

CCS 3 12% 17 65% 4 15% 2 8% 26

O&F 94 9% 153 15% 196 19% 304 30% 264 26% 1,011

R&T 28 1% 895 29% 931 30% 790 25% 427 14% 42 1% 3,113

TS 27 4% 145 23% 150 24% 173 27% 132 21% 4 1% 631

Total 197 3% 1,711 24% 1,982 28% 1,974 28% 1,224 17% 57 1% 7,145

2012 2 100% 2

APM 53 2% 460 21% 647 30% 651 30% 341 16% 13 1% 2,165

C&M 17 8% 57 27% 85 40% 53 25% 2 1% 214

CCS 2 7% 17 63% 6 22% 2 7% 27

O&F 115 11% 156 15% 208 20% 307 29% 258 24% 12 1% 1,056

R&T 26 1% 857 27% 939 30% 816 26% 444 14% 46 1% 3,128

TS 26 4% 141 22% 153 24% 161 25% 142 22% 9 1% 632

Total 224 3% 1,648 23% 2,010 28% 2,022 28% 1,238 17% 82 1% 7,224

Age and Occupational Staff Group

of 95

Senior Research and Teaching Posts

There was no change in the number of female staff in senior research positions from 2011 to

2012. The proportion of 27% for 2011 has remained the same in 2012. This is still some way

off the 2014/2015 target of 33% and therefore will require some focus over the coming years.

Gender

Gender

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

Female 280 27% 281 27% 280 27%

Male 770 73% 764 73% 763 73%

Total 1,050 100% 1,045 100% 1,043 100%

Gender Profile of Senior Research and Teaching staff

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Senior Research and Teaching Employee Profile by Gender

Male

Female

of 95

Ethnicity

In 2010 there was a marked increase of senior R&T staff from ethnic minorities up almost 1%

to 7.6%. Since then the figure has been fairly consistent.

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

White 945 95.74% 944 95.64% 943 95.54%

Ethnic Minority 79 7.52% 80 7.62% 78 7.43%

Not Known 26 2.63% 21 2.13% 22 2.23%

Total 987 979 977

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

Chinese / Chinese British 34 43% 37 46% 38 49%

Asian / Asian British 17 22% 18 23% 17 22%

Black / Black British 4 5% 4 5% 5 6%

Mixed 8 10% 7 9% 6 8%

Other 16 20% 14 18% 12 15%

Total 79 100% 80 100% 78 100%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Senior Research and Teaching Employee Profile by Ethnicity

Not Known

Ethnic Minority

White

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Senior Research and Teaching Employee Profile by Ethnic Minority

Other

Mixed




of 95

Disability

This year there has been a slight fall (0.1%) in the numbers of senior research and teaching

employees declaring themselves as having a disability. This brings the figure back to its 2010

value.

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

Declared Disabled 14 1.3% 15 1.4% 14 1.3%

Declared Non-Disabled 997 95.% 995 95.2% 991 95.%

Not Known 39 3.7% 35 3.3% 38 3.6%

Total 1,050 100.% 1,045 100.% 1,043 100.%

Disability Status Profile of Senior Research and Teaching staff

1.28

1.3

1.32

1.34

1.36

1.38

1.4

1.42

1.44

2010 2011 2012

%H

ead

co

un

t fo

r Y

ear

Year

Senior Research and Teaching Employee Profile by Declared Disability (Headcount)

Declared Disabled

of 95

Age

As you would expect for senior research and teaching staff the majority of employees are over

35 (94%); this is due to the experience required to achieve this level.

2010 2011 2012

No. % No. % No. %

16-24 4 % 5 % 1 %

25-34 53 5% 58 6% 57 5%

35-44 287 27% 244 23% 236 23%

45-54 398 38% 435 42% 438 42%

55-64 274 26% 272 26% 278 27%

65+ 34 3% 31 3% 33 3%

Total 1,050 100% 1,045 100% 1,043 100%

Age Profile of Senior Research and Teaching staff

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012

No

.

Year

Senior Research and Teaching Employee Profile by Age

65+

55-64

45-54

35-44

25-34

16-24

of 95

Recruitment

Recruitment monitoring is based on vacancy closing dates occurring in the University financial

year of 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012. These figures only refer to centralised recruitment.

Centralised recruitment does not cover most research, operations and facilities and technical

services roles.

Gender

The proportions of male and female applying for roles within the University continues to reflect

the overall proportion of male and female staff currently employed, with a slightly higher

proportion of female applicants at 52%. However it would also appear that, as candidates

progress through the selection process, the proportion of males being shortlisted compared to

the proportion applying decreases slightly from 47% to 44%. Job offered figures are not

available at this time.

Gender

Applied Shortlisted

No. % No. %

Female 17,635 52% 2,683 55%

Male 15,731 47% 2129 44%

Not Known 345 1% 42 1%

Total 33,711 100% 4,854 100%

Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Gender

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

Female Male Not Known

%

Gender

Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Gender

% Applied

% Shortlisted

of 95

Ethnicity

The University continues to attract a higher proportion of applications from ethnic minority

staff compared to the ethnicity demographic for the local area. However, a proportion of these

applications are as a result of online international candidates who do not possess the relevant

qualifications for the post, or who require a work permit and have applied for positions where a

work permit cannot be obtained without first demonstrating that national recruitment has been

unsuccessful. This accounts for the fact that the proportion of ethnic minority candidates drops

significantly from the numbers applied to those shortlisted.

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

Asian /

Asian

British

Black /

Black

British

Chinese /

Chinese

British

Mixed White Other /

Unknown

%

Ethnicity

Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Ethnicity

% Applied

% Shortlisted

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

White Ethnic Minority Not Known

%

Ethnicity

Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Ethnicity

% Applied

% Shortlisted

of 95

Ethnicity

Applied Shortlisted

No. % No. %

Asian / Asian British 5,547 16.43 463.00 9.52

Black / Black British 1,959 5.80 202.00 4.15

Chinese / Chinese British 1,806 5.35 225.00 4.63

Mixed 856 2.54 114.00 2.34

White 22232 65.86 3,682.00 75.73

Other / Unknown 1355 4.01 176.00 3.62

Total 33,755 100.00 4,862.00 100.00

of 95

Disability

As the recruitment process progresses, the overall success of candidates with a declared

disability decreases from application to shortlisting.

Disability

Applied Shortlisted

No. % No. %

Yes 1317 3.90 146 3.00

No 32438 96.10 4716 97.00

Total 33,755 100.00 4,862 100.00

Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Declared Disability

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Applied Shortlisted

%

Disability

Proportion of Applicants at Each Recruitment Stage by Declared Disability

Yes

No

of 95

Activity/Performance Review

Performance review monitoring is based on the period 2011-2012. Each data set is compared

to the expected rating distribution for the overall University. The ratings available are: does

not meet expectations, meets expectations, exceeds (1) expectations and exceeds (2)

expectations.

Gender

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below Meets Exceeds Exceeds-2

%

Performance Rating

Distribution of Overall Ratings for the

University

Total Ratings

Expected Ratings

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

Performance Rating

Performance Rating by Gender

Female

Male

Expected Ratings

of 95

GENDER Belo

w %

Meets

%

Exceed

s

%

Exceed

s-2

%

Belo

w

No

.

Meets

No

.

Exceed

s

No

.

Exceed

s-2

No

.

TO

TA

L

Expected

Ratings 10 75 11 4

Female 0.1 86.6 10.5 2.8 4 2581 313 82 2980

Male 0.3 87.1 9.8 2.9 6 1911 214 63 2194

Proportion of staff by gender and their performance rating against the University

expected range

Contract Status

FULL/ PART TIME B

elo

w %

Meets

%

Exceed

s

%

Exceed

s-2

%

Belo

w

No

.

Meets

No

.

Exceed

s

No

.

Exceed

s-2

No

.

TO

TA

L

Expected

Ratings 10 75 11 4

Full-time 0.2 85.8 10.8 3.2 7 3357 424 126 3914

Part-time 0.2 90.1 8.2 1.5 3 1135 103 19 1260

Proportion of staff by contracted hours and their performance rating against the

University expected range

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

Performance Rating

Performance Ratings by Contract Status

Full-time

Part-time

Expected Ratings

of 95

Ethnicity

ETHNICITY B

elo

w

%

Meets

%

Exceed

s

%

Exceed

s-2

%

Belo

w

No

.

Meets

No

.

Exceed

s

No

.

Exceed

s-2

No

.

TO

TA

L

Expected

Ratings 10 75 11 4

White 0.1 86 10.9 2.9 6 3841 486 131 4464

BME 0.7 91.7 5.7 1.8 4 496 31 10 541

Unknown 0 91.7 5.9 2.4 0 155 10 4 169

Proportion of staff by ethnicity and their performance rating against the University

expected range

Disability

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

Performance Rating

Performance Rating by Disability

Disabled

Not Disabled

Expected Ratings

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


%

Performance Rating

Performance Rating by Ethnicity

White

BME

Unknown

Expected Ratings

of 95

DISABILITY Belo

w

%

Meets

%

Exceed

s

%

Exceed

s-2

%

Belo

w

No

.

Meets

No

.

Exceed

s

No

.

Exceed

s-2

No

.

TO

TA

L

Expected Ratings 10 75 11 4

Disabled 0 88 8.7 3.3 0 81 8 3 92

Not Disabled 0.2 86.8 10.2 2.8 10 4411 519 142 5082

Proportion of staff by Disability and their performance rating against the University

expected range

Age

AGE Belo

w

Meets

%

Exceed

s

%

Exceed

s-2

%

Belo

w

No

.

Meets

No

.

Exceed

s

No

.

Exceed

s-2

No

.

TO

TA

L

Expected

Ratings 10 80 11 4

16-25 0 92.9 5.7 1.4 0 131 8 2 141

26-35 0.1 87.4 9.9 2.7 1 1,258 142 39 1,440

36-45 0.4 84.7 11.1 3.8 6 1,361 179 61 1,607

46-55 0.2 86.9 10.6 2.4 2 1,153 140 32 1,327

56-65 0.2 89.3 8.9 1.7 1 582 58 11 652

66+ 0 100 0 0 0 7 0 0 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


%

Performance Rating

Performance Rating by Age Distribution

16-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66+

Expected Ratings

of 95

Position in Salary Range

SALARY RANGE ANALYSIS

Belo

w

%

Meets

%

Exceed

s

%

Exceed

s-2

%

Belo

w

No

.

Meets

No

.

Exceed

s

No

.

Exceed

s-2

No

.

TO

TA

L

Expected Ratings 10 75 11 4

Standard Range 0.2 88.1 8.8 2.9 5 2395 240 78 2718

Advancement Range 0.2 85.4 11.7 2.7 5 2097 287 67 2456

Proportion of staff by position in the salary range and their performance rating

against the University expected range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


%

Performance Rating

Performance Rating by Position in Salary Range

Standard Range

Advancement Range

Expected Ratings

of 95

Promotions

The academic promotions process is based on individual merit, rather than organisational

change or structural requirements – it is in effect a standard to be met rather than a vacancy

to be filled; whereas the regarding process is intended as a correction mechanism where the

requirements of a role have changed over time; so although they are grouped together in this

report they are not analogous processes.

The promotions monitoring is based on the period 2011-2012 and covers promotions in the

academic job family.

Proportion of approved and declined applications for promotion across all grades

Applications

Declined

Applications

Approved

Total

Applications

Number of applications 45 97 142

0%

100%

Proportion of Promotional Applications Approved or Declined

Applications

Approved

Applications

Declined

of 95

Applicants Grade

Current Grade

Applications

Declined

Applications

Approved Grand Total

Clinical Consultant 0 4 4

R&T Extended Level 5 4 17 21

R&T Level 4 5 15 20

R&T Level 4a 1 2 3

R&T Level 5 17 35 52

R&T Level 6 12 28 40

R&T Level 7 1 0 1

R&T Off scale 0 1 1

Grand Total 40 102 142

Proportion of promotion applications approved or declined by applicant’s grade

0%

50%

100%

%

2012

Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined by Applicants Grade

Applications Declined

Applications Approved

of 95

Age Band

Age Band Applications Declined

Applications


25-34 4 18 22

35-44 15 49 64

38-44

1 1

45-54 17 25 42

55-64 3 9 12

65+ 1

1


Number of promotion applications approved or declined by age band

Gender

Gender

Applications

Declined

Applications


Female 10 37 47

Male 30 65 95


Number of promotion applications approved or declined by gender

0.00

50.00

100.00

25-34 35-44 38-44 45-54 55-64 65+

%

2012

Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Age Band



0%

50%

100%

Female Male

%

2012

Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Gender



of 95

Contract Type

Full/Part time Applications Declined

Applications


Full time 40 96 136

Part time 0 6 6


Number of promotion applications approved or declined by contract type

Ethnicity

Ethnic Origin

Applications

Declined

Applications


White 32 82 114

Asian / Asian British 1 8 9

Chinese / Chinese British 4 5 9

Black / Black British 1

1

Mixed 1

1

Unknown 1 7 8


Number of promotion applications approved or declined by ethnic origin

0%

50%

100%

Applications Declined Applications

Approved

%

2012

Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By

contract type

Part time

Full time

0%

50%

100%

White Asian /

Asian

British

Chinese

/

Chinese

British

Black /

Black

British

Mixed

%

2012

Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Ethicity



of 95

Disability

Disability

Applications

Declined

Applications


Disabled 0 1 1

Not Disabled 40 95 135

Unknown 0 6 6


Number of promotion applications approved or declined by disability

0%

50%

100%

Disabled Not Disabled Unknown

%

2012

Proportion of Promotion Applications Approved or Declined By Disability



of 95

Regrading

The regrading process is available to those staff in the APM and TS job families and is carried

out with reference to the Hay analytical job evaluation scheme implemented at the University.

This process recognises changes in an individual’s role that have already occurred.

This year, female staff were more successful in the regrading process.

The very small numbers of declared disabled staff make it very difficult to draw meaningful

conclusions from the data.

Re-graded Not Re-graded Applied

All roles considered 58 4 62

Proportion of re-grading for all roles considered

0%

50%

100%

%

2012

All Roles Considered: Approved or Declined

Not Regraded

Regraded

of 95

Gender

GENDER Re-graded Not Re-graded Applied

Male 22 1 23

Female 36 3 39

Total 58 4 62

Number of staff regraded by gender for all grades

Disability

DISABILITY Regraded Not Regraded Applied

Disabled 1 0 0

Not Disabled 57 4 49

Total 58 4 62

Number of staff regraded by disability

0%

50%

100%

Regraded Not Regraded

%

2012

Proportion of Re-gradings By Gender for all grades

Female

Male

0%

50%

100%

Not Disabled Disabled

%

2012

Proportion of Regradings by Disability

Regraded

Not Regraded

of 95

Age

AGE Re-graded Not Re-graded Applied

25-24 0 1 1

25-34 2 17 19

35-44 1 17 18

45-54 1 12 13

55-64 0 11 11

TOTAL 45 7 52

Number of staff regraded by age group

Ethnicity

Ethnicity Re-graded Not Regraded Applied

White 4 53 57

Ethnic Group 4 0 4

Not known 1 0 1

TOTAL 9 53 62

Number of staff regraded by ethnicity

0%

50%

100%

25-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64

%

2012

Proportion of Regradings by Age Group

Not Regraded

Regraded

0%

50%

100%

White Ethnic Group Not known

%

2012

Proportion of Regradings by Ethnic Group

Not Regraded

Regraded

of 95

Training

Introduction:

Equality and Diversity training, delivered by the University’s Professional Development Unit,

supports implementation of the University Staff Equality and Diversity Strategy, including the

promotion of good relations, across a wide range of activities. To achieve these aims, the Unit

provides a range of training and development opportunities including:

Equal Opportunity and Disability Workshops offered as part of the Central Short Course

Programme (Appendix 1)

A range of programmes, specialist sessions and central short course programme

workshops with clear equality and diversity content identified through an audit of

provision 2011. This includes ‘Teaching a Diverse Audience’ sessions for Postgraduate

Certificate of Education, Associate Teachers Programme and Intensive Learning and

Teaching Programmes (appendix 2).

Two online learning packages (available to all staff) entitled ‘Managing Diversity’ and a

‘Diversity in Learning and Teaching’.

One hour Equality and Diversity update sessions for schools, delivered by Professional

Development and Funding for ‘Drama for Training’ sessions for specific schools

This report identifies:

1. Attendance, over the period 2010-12, at workshops with a specific equality and

diversity focus by job family, gender and age.

2. Attendance over the period 2010-12 at any central short course programme by job

family, gender and age.

3. Analysis against other relevant KPIs: Recruitment and selection training for managers;

Positive action programmes; NVQs; School-based update sessions.

KPI: Monitoring and evaluation of relevant training to be published annually

Overview

Professional Development offers specific Equal Opportunity and Disability Workshops offered as

part of the Central Short Course Programme (Appendix 1). Additionally in the academic year

2011-2012 has carried out an internal audit of all Central Short Course programmes and

development programmes to identify where equality and diversity-relevant material is included

within the broader provision (Appendix 2).

Both of these sources have been used to identify attendance at relevant training, referred to in

this report as training with an equality and diversity focus. Data has been drawn from a two

year period, 2012-11 and 2011-12, and where possible trends identified. This particular two

year period has been selected as the Central Short Course database went live on 1st October

2010 and so reporting is uniform across this period. Data has been presented from the data

fields within the database.

There is no disaggregation by disability or ethnicity as connection between resource-link and

Dante (central short course programme database) is on the IS development schedule, and not

easily available. PD intend to publish data in these categories in future reports.

Analysis

This section identifies attendance, over the 2010-2012 period, at workshops with a specific

equality and diversity focus by:

of 95

1. Total attendance at Equal Opportunities and disabilities workshops 2010-11 & 2011-12

2. Breakdown by job family 2010-2011

3. Breakdown by Gender

4. Age

Total Attendance

Over the 2010-12 period, there has been an upward trend in the number of individuals

attending sessions which are specifically equality and diversity sessions, or are equality and

diversity relevant.

In 2010/11 711 staff attended such training. In the 2011/12 period 1003 staff attended

Breakdown by job family

Broadly this data set appears to indicate that in any single job family approximately

20% of staff are attending equality and diversity relevant sessions. For example in

2011-12 369 staff from the APM job family attended at least one session from a total of

2,156 staff within the job family (representing 18%).

Across job families there is some variation in percentage attendance but difference is

relatively small when comparing 2010-11 with 2011-12, with the exception of the

Research and Teaching job family.

Attendance across the Research and Teaching job family has changed, with significantly

larger numbers in grades from 4 upwards.

711

1003

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2010-2011 2011-2012

No. of individuals attending Equal Opportunities & Disability training courses by year

2010-2011

2011-2012

of 95

62

5

11

20

1

1

2

3

1

2

1

19

1

29

9

1

11

49

38

1

8

1

39

1

5

1

6

2

1

91

1

1

1

1

1

8

35

2

44

61

100

34

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

(blank)

TS5

TS4

TS3

TS2

TS1

RTOFF-T

RTOFF-R

RTOFF-A

RT7X-A

RT7-R

RT7-A

RT6-R

RT6-A

RT5-T

RT5-S

RT5-R

RT5E-A

RT5-A

RT4T-R

RT4-T

RT4-S

RT4-R

RT4A-T

RT4A-R

RESMEDFELL

OFOFF

OF3

OF2

OF1

CLPROFNCA

CLLECT

CLCONSNCB

APM7X

APM7

APM6

APM5

APM4T

APM4

APM3

APM2

APM1

No. of people attending an Equal Opportunites & Disability training course between October 2010 &

August 2011 by Job Family

Total

of 95

5 33

42 23

6 1

7 1

6 55

3 1 1

71 13

2 15

76 83

4 25

110 1 1

16 1 1

3 5

1 5

1 4

3 2

6 19

38 56

73 145

38 1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

TS5

TS3

TS1

RTOFF-R

RT7X-A

RT6V-A

RT6-R

RT5-T

RT5-R

RT5-A

RT4-T

RT4A-T

RT4A-R

REGISTRAR

OF3

OF1

CLLECT

CLCONSNCA

APM6

APM4

APM2

AGRIC

No. of people attending an Equal Opportunites & Disability training course between October 2010 &

August 2011 by Job Family

Total

of 95

Breakdown by Gender

There is a clear trend in attendance by gender in that across both years a greater number of

female staff than male staff attended equality relevant training. Approximately one third more

women than men attend these equality-relevant sessions. This is likely to have been

influenced by the gender distribution of the job families with the largest attendance by job

family (APM2; APM3 and RT4-R in 2011-12)

Breakdown by Age

All age groups between 23 and 66 are represented in staff attending equality relevant training

sessions, with peaks between the 30 to 50 age range. This is likely to reflect the overall profile

of staff distribution by age.

606

533

397

313

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2010-2011 2011-2012

Attendance at Equal Opportunities & Disability training courses by gender

Females

Males

of 95

2 4

10

14

10 13 12

15

27 25

19

34

19

26 24

31

24 26

22 19

24 23

16 19

9

17

25

14

18 18 15 16

22

9 10

5

14 13

9 9 10

4 7

5 2 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

Age profile of people attending an Equal Opportunities & Disability training course between October 2010 and

August 2011.

12 9

11 14

21

27 31 32

42

49

39 40

35 32

29

35

29

24

42 39

30 28

25

43

35

20 22

16

22

16 20

17

11 12 14

19

12 8

12

4 6

9

4 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

Age profile of people attending an Equal Opportunities & Disability training course between September 2011

and August 2012.

Total

of 95

KPI2: Monitoring attendance at development programmes by job

family, gender, and age

Total Attendances

This data indicates that a static proportion of the UK staff population attend central short

course sessions. During the 2010-11 period 3,474 staff attended at least one session. In total

9,130 training places were attended. During the 2011-12 period 3,122 staff attended at least

one session, and in total 9,176 training places were attended.

Breakdown by job family

Broadly this data set indicates that staff from across the range of job families attend central

short course training. The majority of attendees are from the APM and R&T job families,

reflecting the overall spread of staff across the institution.

During the 2010-11 period a total of 1,497 APM staff attended at least one training session

(from a total of 2,156); 1,375 R&T staff attended at least one training session (from a total of

2,633). During the 2011-12 period these periods were respectively 1,391 and 1,207.

54 1

20 1

110 1

98 46

21 2 4

17 4

24 3 4

147 5

26 1 6

224 89

2 64

2 140

152 6

83 9

315 2 1

50 12

1 1

11 6

17 9

146 6

1 1 2 7 12

3 4 2 1 1 1 3 5

22 84

221 5

290 2

334 2

430 1

98

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

(blank)

TS4P

TS3

TPOFF

RTOFF-A

RT7-R

RT6-T

RT6-A

RT5-R

RT5-A

RT4-S

RT4A-S

REGISTRAR

OFOFF

OF1

MTI

CLLECT

CLCONSNCA

BURSAR

APM7

APM4T

APM3

APM1P

No. of people attending a development activity in-between September 2010 & August 2011 by Job

Family

Total

of 95

74 2

18 1

110 113

44 15

7 24

2 26

3 1

113 3

19 2 5

166 46

2 58

2 129 129

8 67

5 327

3 1

59 15

1 6

16 17

62 6 6

1 7

2 3 2 1 1 1

7 20

74 206

8 1

245 1

328 421

1 78

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

(blank)

TS4P

TS2

RTOFF-R

RT7-T

RT6V-A

RT6-R

RT5-S

RT5E-A

RT4-T

RT4A-T

RESMEDFELL

OF3

NONGRADE

CLLECT

CLCONSNCA

APMOFF

APM6

APM4PM4

APM3

APM1

No. of people attending a development activity in-between September 2011 & August 2012 by Job

Family

Total

of 95

Breakdown by Gender

Similar to analysis by equality and diversity focussed sessions, there is a clear trend in

attendance by gender in that a greater number of female staff than male staff attended

equality relevant training. Approximately one third more women than men attend these

equality-relevant sessions. This is likely to have been influenced by the gender distribution of

the job families with the largest attendance by job family (APM2; APM3 and RT4-R in 2011-

12).

In the 2010-11 approximately one third more women than men attended these sessions.

2158

1317

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Females Males

No. of people who attended a developmental session from September 2010 to August 2011

Females

Males

1933

1189

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Females Males

No. of people who attended a developmental session from September 2011 to August 2012

Females

Males

of 95

Breakdown by Age

Similar to analysis by equality and diversity focussed sessions, all age groups between 23 and

66 are represented in staff attending equality relevant training sessions, with peaks between

the 28 to 54 age range. This is likely to reflect the overall profile of staff distribution by age.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

11

2

2 1 8

13

22 20

41 41

61

89 91

113

129

102 106

101

110

95

115

103 102 106

113

97 95 94

115

102 96

105

91

103 101 97

80

67 63

57

90

59 51

46

31 29 31

20 12

4 2 2

51

Total number of people by age who attended a development session in-between September 2010 and

August 2011

Total

of 95

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

17

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

11

2

1 1 3

27 34

28

51 54

78

90 90

100

115

98

106

96 100

90

111

102

82

95 95

82 85

73

112

103

90

69 68

81 83

71

62

45 49 49

70

48

31

39

30 23 21

15

2 2

72

Total number of people by age who attended a development session in-between September 2011 and

August 2012

Total

of 95

Other KPIs

Recruitment & selection training for Managers

Attendance at recruitment and selection training is growing from a small base of 11 attendees

during the 2010-11 period and 64 in the 2011-12 period. The Agreed reporting date for

‘Recruitment and selection training implemented for all recruiters’ is July 2014, which

Professional Development are working towards in partnership with HR. Analysis in greater

depth will be available for the 2013 report, building towards complete data set for this KPI in

2014.

Positive action programmes

PEAR, WAND and City & Guilds programmes – these programmes have been included

within KPI1 (Attendance, over the period 2010-12, at workshops with a specific equality and

diversity focus by job family, gender and age).

APPLE – The APPLE programme is evaluated through a long-term evaluation, the latest of

which was completed by the 2009-10 cohorts. This reports that, on a scale of strongly agree

to strongly disagree, 60% of participants agree that the course was relevant to their work,

80% agree that learning on the course was transferable to work, 70% agree that they had the

opportunity to use what they learnt on the course, 65% agree that the course has helped

improve performance in the areas covered by the course.

NVQs – Between 2010 and 2012 23 members of staff have completed a level 3 NVQ, and 23

completed a level 2 NVQ.

Future action 2: Data relating to participants is managed by the delivering college and PD are

investigating ways to include more equality relevant data within reporting mechanisms.

School-based update sessions

The following Schools have undertaken specific update sessions during the academic year

2011-12:

1. Internal Audit

2. Pharmacy

3. Nursing

4. English Studies

5. Veterinary Sciences

6. Biosciences

Professional Development have worked with Heads of the following schools to address equality

and diversity issues through drama for training (STEPS):

1. School of Chemistry – 2 sessions, all staff required to attend

2. School of Biology – 1 session, Staff with management responsibility required to attend.

Both Schools have given feedback that this activity has met specific needs and created a more

positive environment for addressing and challenging equality issues. Professional

Development aims to work with other WINSET Schools to identify opportunities for further

targeted training.

of 95

Appendix One

Equal Opportunity and Disability Workshops offered as part of the Central Short

Course Programme

Chair Training for job family level 1 to 4 recruitment

Chair Training for Senior Academic/ APM panels

Entering Employment: workshop for disabled postgraduate students

Listening and responding to students (staff only)

Disability: Interaction and understanding

Managing Equal Opportunities policies

Managing postgraduate study – workshop for disabled students

Recruitment and selection

of 95

Appendix Two

PD Equality Audit 2011: Sessions and programmes containing equality and diversity

materials

Programme & sessions

PGCHE

Teaching a Diverse Audience – Introductory Event workshop

Assessment – Portfolio module

Individual Pathway Module – Assessing & Giving Feedback

Individual Pathway Module – Curriculum Design

Individual Pathway

Module – Foundations of Teaching in HE

Individual Pathway Module – Contemporary Issues in Supervising Research

Students

Personal Effectiveness/ Career progression

Welcome Event for New Staff

NVQ in Business & Administration

NVQ in Customer Service

NVQ in Professional Cookery

NVQ in Hospitality

NVQ in Cleaning and Support Services

NVQ in Security

PEAR Communication Skills

PEAR Core Days

Training the Trainer

Body Language

Communication Skills

Secretary/ PA

Effective secretary / PA managing small projects

Effective secretary/ PA maximising comm. skills

Effective secretary/ PA handling difficult situations

Others

Developing personal effectiveness

Introductions to assertiveness

ILM coaching award

APPLE programme

Handling difficult situations

ILM coaching award

ILM award managing small projects

ILM first line manager award

WAND programme

Handling difficult situations

Emotionally intelligent leadership

Managing small projects

Hall Tutor Training

Welcome Event for New Staff

of 95

Recruitment

Central Short Course Programme – Leadership & Management

Building and Maintaining your team to maximise performance

Building better working relationships

Getting started in management – essential skills

Organisational Change: working with people

Sickness Absence Management

Conflict: Manager’s Guide

Central Short Course Programme – Interpersonal & communication skills

Communicating with people from different cultures

Communicating with people from different cultures (technical staff)

Handling change

UK Culture and Society

Central Short Course Programme – Learning & Teaching

Teaching Saudi/ Indian/ Chinese students

Lecturing for learning

Personal Tutoring

Central Short Course Programme – Wellbeing

How to Successfully manage a health condition

Work: Life balance

Teaching Induction for Pgs and research staff

Demonstrating lab practices

Well being workshops

City & Guilds Programme

of 95

Employee Case Work Analysis

Introduction, Methodology & Overall Analysis

1.1 This report is designed to provide Equalities information relating to HR casework

undertaken by managers and supported by HR. This report covers:

1.1.1 Disciplinary Information

1.1.2 Grievance Information

1.1.3 Dignity Complaints

1.2 The statistics provided in this report relate to proceedings which have reached a

formal stage. This includes those proceedings that are raised formally but are

then resolved informally at the formal stage. This report explicitly does not

include information about employees whose disputes were resolved informally

through extensive work by managers, employees and staff.

1.3 The number of disciplinaries and grievances specifically that reach a formal

stage is only a small proportion of the university population (between 1-2% of

the workforce).

1.4 Our information includes those employees of the University who work on any of

the UK campuses. At present, as this information relates solely to UK policy and

procedure, this information does not relate to individuals who work on the

University’s international campuses in China and Malaysia.

1.5 All information included in this report protects the anonymity of all our

employees. At all times, our goal has been to prevent the identity of any

individual becoming explicitly or implicitly apparent. The University has does not

reveal any equality information that would identify a member of staff, or by

which a particular employees personal information would be apparent. This

report therefore provides general top line statistics in order to assess our

current position against our Equalities Objectives, monitor general trends in line

with the Equalities act, and inform policy development within the University as a

whole.

1.6 This report includes information on all cases that either commenced or

concluded between 1st August 2009 - 31st July 2012. Those individuals who

lodged a dignity issue during this period are also recorded and analysed below.

1.7 The information presented in the Disciplinary Section is used to highlight cases

against individuals by the University. The information provided in the Grievance

Section highlights complaints made by individuals to the university. Finally,

information provided in the Dignity Complaints section details any harassment,

bullying or discrimination complaints made by an employee against another

of 95

staff member to the University.

1.8 Employees who were the subject of a dignity complaint that has been accepted

as valid by the university may then count in the disciplinary section of this

report if formal action was taken against them.

1.9 The Equalities information used in this report is correct as at the 20th September

2012.l

1.10 The data for this report was assembled by HR Advisers, Employment Services

Advisers (HR Case Workers) and Assistant Advisers during a three week period

in September 2012 using spreadsheets. This information was then collated, and

populated with Equalities Information by the HR Systems & Management

Information Team (PAPS).

1.11 The data contained in this report therefore only contains information received by

this team by the 20th September 2012.

1.12 The point of contact for any queries on this report in HR Systems &

Management Information is Jonathan Sneade

([email protected]). The HR Senior Team Contact is Clare

Martlew, Deputy Director of Human Resources

([email protected]).

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

of 95

Focus on Formal Disciplinary Proceedings

2.1 Disciplinary Types by Faculty

Disciplinary Performance Grand Total

Arts 5

5

Engineering 2 2 4

Medicine & Health 9

9

Professional Services 42 6 48

Sciences 3

3

Social Sciences 6 1 7

Grand Total 67 9 76

There were 76 cases which were managed at a formal stage during the period.

67 (88.15%) were pure disciplinaries, relating to a range of issues

including conduct and attendance. 9 (11.8%) were formal performance cases. 48% of cases involved staff within professional services (including but

not limited to: Registrars, Estates and Nottingham Hospitality). The Academic Faculty with the highest number of disciplinary cases

was Medicine & Health (9), equating to 11.8% of all university cases.

2.2 Disciplinary Types by Job Family

Disciplinary Performance Grand Total

APM 11 4 15

O&F 30 1 31

R&T 19 2 21

TS 7 2 9

Grand Total 67 9 76

Staffs in the Operations & Facilities (O&F) job family were a party to 31 cases. This represents 40.7% of all university cases.

Staffs in the Research & Teaching (R&T) job family were the subject of 21 cases, which represents 27.6% of all cases within the period.

26% of cases involving staff in the Administrative, Professional and

Managerial (APM) job family related to performance. This was the highest percentage of all job families, and compares to only 11.8% across the whole universities.

96.7% of all cases regarding Operations & Facilities Staff (O&F) were disciplinary proceedings.

of 95

2.3 Disciplinaries: Job Family by Faculty/ School

APM O&F R&T TS Grand Total

Arts

5

5

Engineering

2 2 4

Medicine & Health 1

4 4 9

Professional Services 14 31 1 2 48

Sciences

2 1 3

Social Sciences

7

7

Grand Total 15 31 21 9 76

2.4 Hearing Outcomes of Disciplinary Proceedings

2.5 Hearings: Outcomes by Disability

of 95

The overwhelming majority of disciplinary cases were against staff

declaring themselves without a disability (92.1%). Only 2 cases

(2.6%) were involving people declaring a disability to Human Resources.

Both people subjected to a disciplinary procedure who declared disabilities

were dismissed during the period. It is important to note that the

sample size here is extremely small and assumptions based on this

should be avoided.

2.6 Hearings: Outcomes by Gender

Points to note: 26.3% of men subjected to a disciplinary procedure were dismissed at the

hearing stage.

52.6% of women subjected to a disciplinary procedure were dismissed at

the hearing stage (a difference of 19.2%).

Fewer females were subjected to a formal disciplinary procedure

than males during the period. 25% of cases (19) involved female staff.

2.7 Hearings: Outcomes by Age

under 25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64

Grand Total

Dismissal

2 10 6 7 25

Formal Sanction 2 6 6 13 7 34

No Sanction

1 3 5

9

Data Unavailable

1 3 1 3 8

Grand Total 2 10 22 25 17 76

of 95

2.8 Hearings: Outcomes by Ethnic Origin

Row Labels Dismissal Formal Sanction

No Sanction

Data Unavailable

Grand Total

0

2 1

3

Black Caribbean

1 1

Chinese

2 1

3

Indian

1

1

Mixed White and Asian

1 1

Mixed White and Black

Caribbean

1

1

Other Asian background

1

1

Other Background 1 2

3

Other Black background 1

1

Other Mixed background 1

1

Other White background 1

2 1 4

White

1 1

White British English 21 20 4 3 48

White British Scottish

1

1 2

White British Welsh

4

4

White Irish

1

1

Grand Total 25 34 9 8 76

of 95

Hearings: Outcomes by Job Family

2.9 Appeal Y/N by Job Family

25% of individuals are known to have appealed their hearing decision.

This equates to 19 cases out of the 76 heard during the period.

of 95

2.10 Disc Appeal Outcomes Summary

2.11 Disc Appeal Outcomes by Disability Status

2.12 Disc Appeal Outcomes by Gender

of 95

2.13 Disc Appeal Outcomes by Age

2.14 Disc Appeal Outcomes by Ethnic Origin

of 95

2.15 Disc Appeal Outcomes by Job Family

of 95

Focus on Grievances

3.1 Grievances: Faculty/ School by Job Family

Arts

Engineering

Medicine & Health Sciences

Professional Services

Social Sciences

Grand Total

APM 8 2 10

O&F 4

4

R&T 2

2

1 5

TS 1 1

2

Grand Total

2 1 3 12 3 21

3.2 Grievance Cases: Outcomes by Disability

3.3 Grievance Cases: Outcomes by Gender

of 95

3.4 Grievance Cases: Outcomes by Age Group

3.5 Grievance Cases: Outcomes by Ethnic Origin

Formally Rejected

Formally Upheld

In Progress

Informal Resolution Withdrawn

Grand Total

Indian 1

1 2

Other Background 1

1

Other Black background

1

1

Other White background

2

2

White British English 5 1 1 3 2 12

White British Scottish

1

1

White British Welsh 1

1

White Irish 1 1

Grand Total 8 1 5 3 4 21

3.6 Grievance Cases: Outcomes by Job Family

of 95

3.7 Grievance Cases: Start Stage by Outcome

3.8 Grievance Cases: End Stage by Outcome

of 95

Focus on Dignity Complaints

4.1 Dignity Complaints: Faculty

Complaints %

Engineering 3 21.43%

Information Services 1 7.14%

Medicine & Health 3 21.43%

Professional Services 2 14.29%

Sciences 2 14.29%

Social Sciences 3 21.43%

Grand Total 14 100.00%

4.2 Dignity Complaints: Job Family

4.3 Dignity Complaints: Outcomes by Gender of Complainant

50%

22%

14%

14%

Dignity Complaints by Job Family

APM R&T TS Non-Staff

1 1

6

1 1 1

3

Accepted -

Formal Action

Accepted -

Informal Resolution

Rejected -

Malicious

Rejected - NFA Outcome

Unknown

Complaint Outcomes by Gender

F M

of 95

4.4 Dignity Complaints: Outcomes by Age of Complainant

4.5 Dignity Complaints: Outcomes by Ethnic Origin of Complainant

4.6 Dignity Complaints: Outcomes by Disability

2

1 1

6

1 1

Accepted -

Formal Action

Accepted -

Informal Resolution

Rejected -

Malicious


Unknown

Complaint Outcomes by Age Group

35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64

1 1 1 1

3

1 1

2

Accepted -

Formal Action

Accepted -

Informal Resolution

Rejected -

Malicious


Unknown

Complaint Outcomes by Ethnic Origin

Black Caribbean Chinese Other White background

White British English White British Scottish White British Welsh

Unknown

of 95

4.7 Dignity Complaints: Outcomes by Job Family

1 1 1 1

9

1

Not Disabled Unknown

Complaint Outcomes by Disability Status

Accepted - Formal Action Accepted - Informal Resolution Rejected - Malicious

Rejected - NFA Outcome Unknown

1 1 1 1

5

2 2

1

APM R&T TS Non Staff

Complaint Outcomes by Job Family

Accepted - Formal Action Accepted - Informal Resolution

Rejected - Malicious Rejected - NFA

Outcome Unknown

staff annual diversity report 2012 (incorporating equality ... · staff annual diversity report...

Documents