STAFF RECRUITMENTSTATISTICS
UNIVERSITY STAFF PROFILE
1 AUG 07 – 31 JUL 08
PRESENTED TO THE EQUALITY & DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
JUNE 11 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
General commentary & regional HE comparators1-4
University information5-8
Table 1 – Recruitment: APT&C posts9
Table 2 – Recruitment: Academic posts10
Table 3 – Recruitment: Manual & Catering posts11
Table 4 – Disability monitoring12
Table 5 – Aggregated monitoring by ethnicity13
Table 6 – Current staff population14
Table 7 – Staff profile by ethnicity / post15
COMMENTARY ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES MONITORING STATISTICS
FOR PERIOD 1 AUG 2007 – 31 JUL 2008
The information has been presented in a similar format as for previous years.To allow ease of comparison, the data has been divided into three sections;
- the population of the UK and the West Midlands by gender and ethnicity
- the regional Higher Education sector by gender, ethnicity, disability and age
- University recruitment trends for Aug 07 – Jul 08, by disability, gender and ethnicity followed by profiles of the University staff population
The following commentary should be read alongside the data tables and for ease of reference all key comparative data appears in bold and all information relating to the University appears in bold italics.
1. UK/West Midlands
The population for the UK and the West Midlands was studied for comparison. The information was sourced from the Office for National Statistics website detailing census data from the 2001 census (www.statistics.gov.uk/census), the Wolverhampton City Council website (www.wolverhampton.gov.uk) and the Higher Education Information Database for Institutions (HEIDI) and gives the following information.
For the UK and West Midlands there are about 10% more men in the working population than women.
The resident population by ethnic group, for the West Midlands and for EnglandWales was looked at. The census classifies the local authorities of the West Midlands as incorporating Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell, Staffordshire, Shropshire, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire. As the University recruits staff from across this area, it has been previously agreed by the Committee that this is a valid source of comparative data.
Census information shows that for the population of EnglandWales, the black and minority ethnic (bme) population is7.9%. For the West Midlands, this figure is 11.3%. ForWolverhampton, the bme population is 22%.
In the past, our academic staff profile was benchmarked against the national bme percentage figure (7.9%) and for APT&C and Manual staff the local Wolverhampton figure (22%) was used as a benchmark. These did not take into account the wider region from which we recruit staff, nor the fact that we have campuses based in other local authority areas and so it was agreed to use the regional West Midlands figure for comparison for all posts.
Black and minority ethnic staff account for16%of the University staff population.(Source: HEIDI Aug 07-Jul08). This has increased from 15% from the date of the last report.
1.
2. The Regional HE Sector
Information is now sourced from HEIDI, which is affiliated to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). HEIDI provides reports detailing set information on staff in all UK HE institutions. This information includes data for casual and VL staff.Broader comparative information for the sector is also provided from the DLA Piper Workforce Performance Indicator Report for Higher Education 2008.
The staff profile indicating gender, ethnicity and disability for the academic year 2007-08 is shown in the following three tables. How the University profile compares with the regional sector profile, where known, is also shown. HEIDI data has been usedas this is the only consistent source providing specific regional sector comparators. HEIDI data is compiled using information Universities provide annually to HESA. Not all data provided to HESA is available currently through HEIDI. This means that only certain comparator information can be provided.
Gender for year 2007-08
TABLE 1 - All staff by gender
Female / MaleBCU / 51% / 49%
Uni of B’ham / 51% / 49%
Coventry / 56% / 44%
Keele / 59% / 41%
Staffs / 57% / 43%
UoW’ton / 58% / 42%
Worcs / 64% / 36%
HEIDI data shows that for the HEIs listed, women made up an average 56.5%. The University of Wolverhampton staff population for this period was 58% female, slightly above the regional sector average. The DLA Piper Report for Higher Education 2008 states that “Within the HE sector, an average 54.8% of the workforce are female, compared with 63.6% for the Large Public Sector Comparator Group”
For a more local “employer comparison”, the most recent figures available supplied from the Wolverhampton City Council website showed that for the period 2006/2007 the overall %age of female staff working at the Council was 74%
Ethnicity for year 2007-08
TABLE 2 - All staff by ethnicity
White / Black / Asian / Mixed / Not knownBCU / 77.5% / 5% / 8% / 1.5% / 8%
Uni of B’ham / 84% / 3.5% / 9.5% / 2% / 1%
Coventry / 80% / 3% / 10% / 1% / 6%
Keele / 83% / 0.5% / 3.5% / 1% / 12%
Staffs / 92% / 1% / 3% / 1% / 3%
UoW’ton / 83.5% / 4.5% / 10% / 1.5% / 0.5%
Worcs / 93% / 2% / 2.5% / 2% / 0.5%
2.
The percentage figures have been calculated using ethnicity data where known and rounded up or down to the nearest whole number, except where numbers are small. HEIDI data shows that for the HEIs listed, ethnic minority staff as an average percentage of all staff of known ethnicity is 11%. Using these HEIs as comparators, the university is above the regional sector average, with its known ethnic minority staff at 16%. This is the highest percentage figure for all known bme staff in the region, with Birminghamshowing 15% and BCU and Coventry respectively showing 14.5% and 14% known bme staff. It should be noted that a number of other Universities, notably BCU, Coventry and Keele show a higher figure percentage for staff where ethnicity information is not known. A more complete set of figures for these Universities could affect the overall average percentage.
The DLA Piper Report for Higher Education 2008 states that “Within the HE sector, an average 8.9% of the workforce have a Black or Minority Ethnic background, compared with 7.3% for the Large Public Sector Comparator Group”
For a more local “employer comparison”, figures supplied from the Wolverhampton City Council website showed that for the period 2006/2007 the overall %age of bme staff working at the Council was 14.25%
Disability for year 2007-08
TABLE 3(a) – All staff by recorded disability
Declared disabled / Information not givenBCU / 2.8% / 12%
Uni of B’ham / 1.9% / 2.4%
Coventry / 3.5% / 16%
Keele / 1.2% / 10.5%
Staffs / 5.2% / 5.5%
UoW’ton / 2.3% / 0.2%
Worcs / 3% / 0.5%
The HEIDI data shows that for the HEIs listed, staff recording a disability made up an average percentage of 2.84% of the total staff population. The University is below this at 2.3%, however the recruitment figures attached show that for the same period, 2.2% of all appointees were recorded as disabled, the highest figure recorded to date. It should also be noted that BCU, Coventry and Keele show a higher figure percentage for staff where this information is not known. A more complete set of figures for these Universities could affect the overall average percentage.
The DLA Piper Report for Higher Education 2008 states that “Within the HE sector, an average 2.6% of the workforce report a disability, compared with 2.4% for the Large Public Sector Comparator Group”
For a more local “employer comparison”, figures supplied from the Wolverhampton City Council website showed that for the period 2006/2007 the overall %age of staff considering themselves to be disabled and working at the Council was 1.61%.
3.
Age for year 2007-08
TABLE 4(a)
Age / %ge aged 16-24 / %ge aged 25-34 / %ge aged 35-44 / %ge aged 45-54 / %ge aged 55-64 / %ge aged 65+
UoW total staff / 4.5% / 17.8% / 26.7% / 29.5% / 20.6% / 0.9%
HEIs / 4.5% / 21.4% / 26.6% / 26.9% / 19.1% / 1.5%
Comparative information for this area is taken from the DLA Piper Report for Higher Education 2008 as age profile information is not available from HEIDI. The DLA report shows that within HEIs, just over half (53.5%) of the workforce are aged 35 - 54. The University staff profile is slightly above this at 56.2%. The DLA report states; “Comparison of the workforce age profile between Higher Education and the Large Public Sector comparator group is very similar within each of the age groups”.
Information on age is not currently gathered by the University at the recruitment stage. The following table shows the age percentage breakdown of the actual staff population across the three main staff groups, compared with the sector average taken from the DLA Piper report. The DLA Piper information is shown in the shaded areas;
TABLE 4(b)
Staff group↓ / Age / %ge
16-24 / %ge
25-34 / %ge
35-44 / %ge
45-54 / %ge
55-64 / %ge
65+
UoW Academic / 0.2% / 11.7% / 26.9% / 36.8% / 23.5% / 0.9%
HEI Academic / 0.9% / 18.9% / 28.9% / 29.0% / 20.1% / 2.2%
UoW APT&C / 8.4% / 26.0% / 27.2% / 21.3% / 16.2% / 0.9%
HEI Non-academic / 1.2% / 19.0% / 31.0% / 30.1% / 17.6% / 0.9%
UoW Manual / 1.6% / 5.5% / 24.6% / 39.2% / 27.9% / 1.2%
HEI operational/support / 8.1% / 24.0% / 23.1% / 24.2% / 18.6% / 1.5%
The University has a higher than sector average percentage of academic staff over the age of 45 and these make up 61% of the academic staff population.The University also has a higher than sector average percentage of operational/support (manual) staff over the age of 45 and these make up 68% of that staff group population. The University has a higher than sector average percentage of non-academic (APT&C) staff aged 16-34 and staff under the age of 44 make up 62% of the non-academic population.
4.
3. The University of Wolverhampton
For University specific data, the statistics refer to the 12-month period 1 August 2007-31 July 2008. During this period, 329 posts were advertised. The percentage breakdown for each of the staff groups is as follows;
APT&C posts advertised – 67%
Academic posts advertised - 19%
Manual posts advertised - 14%
During the year, 270 appointments were made. Of the posts filled, 95% of these were filled first time. The DLA Piper report (2008) states that for all jobs in the HE sector, the average number of vacancies filled first time was 87.5%.
Data has been analysed for the 3 stages of recruitment; application, shortlist and appointment and brokendown for the 3 categories of staff (Tables 1-3). These show the total number of posts advertised; the total number of applicants; those who were short-listed and appointed, with gender %age figures for each stage underneath. The main body of the table shows the actual ethnicity/gender figures for all the above. Ethnicity is monitored using the 17 categories used in the census model. It was felt appropriate to include all these categories to show how these translate across our own activity.The tables show figures for male applicants on a shaded background, for ease of clarification. Actual figures rather than percentages have been given at the request of the committee. A percentage breakdown for bme applicants is included at the bottom of each table.
Table 4 provides both actual and percentage figures for applicants who have declared any disability. Table 5 provides the aggregated figures for ethnicity since 1996. Table 6 shows the whole University staff population as at 31 July 2008 and Table 7 shows the staff population at 31 July 2008, broken down to show broadly where bme staff are working and at what level across the University.
Table 1 - APT&C
67% of the posts advertised were APT&C (220 posts), a rise on previous years. These attracted 5329 applications (24 applications per post, up from 17 in the previous 12 month period). If we look at the gender balance, these posts attracted more females than males (63% of applications were from females), with females being appointed to nearly twice the number of posts as males (66% of appointees were female). The highest percentage group of people applying were white British females, followed by white British males, Indian females (more than doubled from the previous year) then Indian males. This is the same as for the previous three years. The next highest category is Black Caribbean females.
16.6% of white female applicants were short-listed with 28% of those being successful at interview. 20% of white male applicants were short-listed, with 20% of these being appointed, lower than in 2006-7. By comparison, only 12% of Indian female applicants were successful at getting short-listed (lower than 2006-7) but this figure then increased to 19.7% of them being successful at interview stage (higher than 2006-7). 10% of Indian male applicants were successful at getting short-listed (lower than 2006-7), with 19% of these being appointed, higher
5.
than 2006-7. 9% of Black Caribbean females were shortlisted, with 21% of these appointed, lower than for the last two years. Specifically looking at White Other female applicants, 6.5% of these were short-listed, with none of those being appointed, lower than the previous two years. A very low number of applicants from a mixed ethnic background applied and were short-listed with only one being appointed, the same as for the previous year.
In total, 186 appointments were made. 17.7% of all APT&C appointments were made to minority ethnic staff. In 2006-7 this figure was 16%.
Table 2 - Academic
19% of the posts advertised were Academic (64 posts). This is lower than in the previous 12 months, when 34% of posts advertised were Academic. However, the posts attracted 779 applications (12 applications per post, up from 9.5 applications per post for the previous 12 months). 59% of applications were from males,with 59% of all academic appointments being made to males.
The highest number of applicants were white British males, followed by white British females, white other males and females, Indian males and females and black African males.
33% of white British male applicants were short-listed with 25% of these being appointed (higher than 2006-7). 32% of white female applicants were short-listed with 21% of those short-listed being appointed (lower than 2006-7). 19% of white other male applicants were shortlisted with 8% of these being appointed. 18% of white other females were shortlisted with 44% of these being appointed. 2.7% of Indian male applicants were shortlisted as opposed to 18.9% of Indian females. No Indian males were appointed with 28.5% of Indian females shortlisted being appointed. 9.6% of Black African males were shortlisted, with 33% of those being appointed (one appointment). Again, a very low number of applicants from a mixed ethnic background applied and were short-listed with two being appointed.
In total 47 appointments were made. 19% of all Academic appointments were made to minority ethnic staff, down from 24% in 2006-7 and 23% in 2005-6.
Table 3 - Manual
14% of the posts advertised were Manual or Catering (45 posts) and these attracted 732 applications (16 applications per post). These figures show no marked difference to the previous 12 months. The gender balance at application stage looks unusual due to posts advertised for caretakers and/or security officers which historically receive large numbers of predominantly male applications. This imbalance rectifies itself at short-listing stage and is reversed at appointed stage due to the numbers of cleaning and catering posts, historically applied to by women. By far the biggest group of applicants were white British male, followed by white British female, then Indian male, Indian female and Black African male. This is exactly the same as 2006-7.
14% of white British male applicants were short-listed, with 21% of those short-listed being appointed (slightly higher than 2006-7). 37% of white British female applicants were short-listed with 25% of those being appointed (slightly lower than 2006-7). 18%
6.
of Indian male applicants were short-listed with 22% being appointed, (the same as 2006-7). 34% of Indian female applicants were short-listed with 9% being appointed, lower than 2006-7. 12.5% of Black African male applicants were short-listed with none being appointed. Three people from a mixed background were appointed, higher than the pervious two years.
In total 37 appointments were made. 29.7% of all Manual appointments were made to minority ethnic staff. In 2006-7 this figure was 19% and in 2005-6 this figure was 26%.
In terms of ethnicity, the University is above the national and regional sector averages for bme staff and shows a higher percentage of bme staff than any of its nearest competitors. However, the data relating specifically to recruitment shows that whereas bme applicants made up just under one-third of all applications to the University, only just over one-fifth of all appointments were made to bme applicants. This means that applicants were almost 1.5 times more likely to get short-listed if they were white and nearly twice as likely to get a job offer.
Table 4 – Applicants recorded as being disabled
The total no. of applicants for all posts was 6,844 (on average 21 applicants per post, higher than for the last four years). Of these, 5.6% were recorded as being disabled – up from 2.2% for the previous 12 months and the highest figure recorded to date. The majority of these people (80%) applied for APT&C posts. At short-listing stage, 4.78% of all applicants were recorded as disabled (up from 1.3% in the previous 12 months and the highest figure recorded to date), again with the majority of these (85%) being for APT&C posts.
In total 2.2% of all people appointed were recorded as disabled, up from 1.3% for the previous 12 months and the highest figure recorded to date.The actual figures for this year break down as 8 people recorded as disabled being shortlisted with one appointed into an academic post (i.e. 12.5% of those shortlisted) and 48 people recorded as disabled being shortlisted with 4of those appointed into an APT&C post (i.e. 8.3%). 47 people with a recorded disability applied to manual posts (87% of these were male) with one being shortlisted and appointed. No people with recorded disabilities have been appointed into manual posts for the previous threefour years.
Table 5 - Aggregated figures
The next page of figures shows the overall trends for recruitment activity by ethnicity year on year – these are an amalgamation of the first three tables provided. For these 12 months, we can see that whereas the number of bme applicants has fallen slightly, the total number of bme appointments is slightly higher than for 2007.The aggregated figures hide some detail which the Committee may wish to consider and which is shown more clearly in Tables 1-5, namely;