annual gender split workforce information report 2014/file/... · 2015-03-16 · total annual...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1
Gender Split
49% 51%
Female Professors
23%
Staff Breakdown Age Breakdown Part-Time Staff
Disability
4.7%
Annual Workforce Information Report 2014
Total Staff Costs To Total Income
51.6%
Academic Recruitment 3,592 Applications 163 Appointments
Research Recruitment 5,357 Applications 439 Appointments
Teaching Recruitment 1,495 Applications 128 Appointments
Non-UK Staff
17.5%
6038.7 FTE
12.1% Total
Turnover
7,243 Staff
5.8% VoluntaryTurnover
MEO
11%
Page 2
1. Talent Attraction and Attrition 1.1. Staff Numbers 1.2. Faculty Growth 1.3. Fixed-Term Contracts 1.4. Starters and Leavers 1.5. International Recruitment 1.6. Male/Female Recruitment 1.7. Turnover 1.8. Retirement
2. KPI: Percentage of Professorial Staff who are Female
2.1. Female Professors 2.2. Academic, Research & Teaching Staff – Growth, Attrition and Promotions by Gender
3. KPI: Percentage Ratio of Total Staff Costs to Total Income 3.1. Staff Costs as a Percentage of Income 3.2. Spend on Reward 3.3. Sickness Absence
3.3.1. Cost of Sickness Absence
4. KPI: Percentage of Staff who are Proud to Work for the University 4.1. We are Proud
Sector Comparisons Within this report, reference has been made to benchmarking data against HESA and the DLA Piper Workforce Performance Indicators survey 2013. HESA refers to the Higher Education Statistics Agency and is a statutory return for all Higher Education Institutions. The DLA Piper survey covers some 400 organisations, including 72 Higher Education Institutions.
Page 3
1.1 Staff Numbers
Academics Researchers Teachers Professional Staff
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GTA 21 481
Academic 1160 1181 1212 1318 1349
Research 1006 1049 1099 1167 1270
Teaching 282 330 381 417 459
Professional 3085 3131 3339 3494 3684
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Staff Headcount by Category (2010 - 2014)
2% 9% 10% 5%
The number of staff has increased by 12.9% in the last 12 months and has exceeded the 7,000 mark for the first time, standing at 7,243.
481 Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) are now on University staff contracts (GTAs are recorded as 0 FTE but have guaranteed minimum hours).
.Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) has increased by 5.4% (6,038.7 FTE) In 2013/14 there was an increase across all staff groups:
Page 4
1.2 Faculty Growth
1.3 Fixed-Term Contracts
40.4%
24.3% 17.6% 16.5% 15.3%
3.4% 2.2%
11.9%
24.4%
5.6% 3.9%
-3.1%
3.9% 1.4%
Engineering AMRC Social Sciences Science Arts &Humanities
ProfessionalServices
MedicineDentistry &
Health
Faculty Growth 2013/14 Headcount
FTE
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage of Staff on Fixed-Term Contracts 2010 - 2014
The AMRC percentage increase in headcount is broadly consistent with the increase in FTE suggesting that appointments have been full-time.
Other Faculties have a significantly smaller increase in FTE when compared to headcount, which can be attributed to the introduction of Graduate Teaching Assistant contracts
Engineering has appointed 47% of the 481 GTAs. Professional Services has experienced a larger FTE increase compared to
headcount. This suggests that part-time working is becoming less popular.
The introduction of contracts for Graduate Teaching Assistants has contributed to a reversal of the downward trend of fixed-term contracts.
Excluding GTAs from the figures results in a slight increase in fixed-term contract usage, up from 26.1% as at 31 July 2013 to 26.8% as at 31 July 2014.
The average percentage of staff on fixed-term contracts within the Russell Group is 25.3%, ranging from University College London with just 1.7% to the University of Oxford with 48.9% (HESA Staff Data, 2012/13).
Page 5
1.4 Starters and Leavers
£-
£10,000
£20,000
£30,000
£40,000
£50,000
£60,000
£70,000
£80,000
£-
£2,000,000
£4,000,000
£6,000,000
£8,000,000
£10,000,000
£12,000,000
Professional Teaching Research Lecturer SL/Reader Professor Co
st o
f A
nn
ual
Sal
ary
pe
r St
arte
r/Le
ave
r
Tota
l Co
st o
f A
nn
ual
Sal
ary
Cost of Starters and Leavers 2013/14
Cost of Starters Cost of Leavers Ave cost per Starter Ave cost per Leaver
Total Annual
Salary Cost of
New Starters
£27.9m
Total Annual
Salary Cost of
Leavers
£21.4m
The average annual salary of a new Lecturer is c.£7k less than that of a leaver, which is the difference between the top and bottom points of Grade 8.
The average annual salary per starter (all categories) is £24.7k compared with £25.9k per leaver.
For Senior Lecturers/Readers and Professors, the average annual salary per starter is c.£10k higher than the average annual salary of those leaving.
Page 6
1.5 Recruitment of Non-UK Nationals In this section, Non-UK refers to applicants with overseas nationality (including the EU). It does not refer to their domicile.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Applied Interviewed Appointed Staff in Post31.7.2014
Recruitment of Non-UK Nationals by Category (2013/14)
Academic
Research
Teaching
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
UK Non-UK
Conversion Rates from Application to Appointment by Nationality (2013/14)
Academic
Research
Teaching
In every staff category, UK nationals are more than twice as likely to be appointed as non-UK nationals.
For Academic, Research and Teaching vacancies, the highest number of non-UK applicants were Indian (1,267), Chinese (1055) and Italian (614).
The conversion rate of non-UK applicants is higher for Teaching vacancies than for Research, the opposite applies for UK applicants.
There is a less than 3% conversion rate from application to appointment for non-UK candidates applying for Academic posts. With our aspiration to be an international University, this is an area to investigate.
Page 7
1.6 Male/Female Recruitment
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Applied Interviewed Appointed Staff in Post31.7.2014
Female Recruitment by Category (2013/14)
Academic
Research
Teaching
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
Male Female
Conversion Rates from Application to Appointment by Gender (2013/14)
Academic
Research
Teaching
In 2013/14, the University received 13,836 applications from male candidates and 14,004 from female candidates. Of these, 685 male appointments and 758 female appointments were made. This gives a conversion of 1:20.2 male applications resulting in appointment and 1:18.5 applications for female.
For Academic vacancies, the proportion of female candidates interviewed was higher than the proportion that applied, and a higher proportion of female candidates were appointed. A female applicant is 1.6 times more likely to be appointed to an Academic position than a male applicant.
Page 8
1.7 Turnover Figures in this section exclude Graduate Teaching Assistants. Total turnover refers to all leavers and includes resignations. Turnover is calculated by dividing the number of leavers during the period by the average headcount.
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Academic Research Teaching Professional
Percentage Staff Turnover by Staff Category 2013/14
Total Turnover
Resignations
ProfessionalServices
MedicineDentistry &
HealthEngineering Science
SocialSciences
Arts &Humanities
AMRC
Starters 353 150 201 166 132 31 94
Leavers -282 -151 -106 -134 -83 -46 -26
Difference +71 -1 +95 +32 +49 -15 +68
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Starters & Leavers by Faculty 2013/14
StartersLeavers
Total voluntary turnover (resignations) for the University was 5.8%, this compares with the sector average of 6.7%. Turnover for Academic, Research and Teaching staff at the University was 6.3%, compared with a sector average of 5.7% (DLA Piper
Workforce Performance Indicators survey 2013).
As at 31 July 2014 all areas of the University, except Arts & Humanities and Medicine, Dentistry & Health, had turned over a greater number of starters than leavers during the previous 12 months.
Page 9
1.8 Retirement
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Percentage of Leavers who Retired (2010 - 2014)
Academic
Research
Teaching
Professional
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Academic Research Teaching Professional
Age Profile by Staff Category - 31 July 2014
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
16-24
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Uni of Sheffield
HE Average
Age Profile at 31 July 2014 - Sector Comparison 16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
The default retirement age was removed from legislation on 1st October 2011, despite this the average retirement age has remained constant at c.63 for Academic staff and c.62 for Professional staff. Figures for Teaching and Research are too low to take a meaningful average.
Without the default retirement age, there has been a steady increase in staff who are aged 65 and over, from 0.4% of the workforce in 2010 to the current level of 1.3%.
Comparison with the HE sector average shows that overall the University has a younger workforce profile DLA Piper Workforce Performance Indicators (
survey 2013).
Page 10
2.1 Female Professors
2.2 Academic, Research & Teaching staff – Growth, Attrition and Promotions by Gender
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Number and % of Female Professors 2010 - 2014
Headcount Percentage
-5.0%
5.0%
15.0%
25.0%
35.0%
45.0%
55.0%
65.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Teaching Research Lecturer SL/Reader Professor
% S
taff
in P
ost
% G
row
th, A
ttri
on
, Pro
mo
tio
n
Growth, Attrition and Promotion of Academic, Research and Teaching Staff (2013 - 2014)
Growth Female Growth Male Attrition Female Attrition MalePromotions Female Promotions Male In Post Female
The number of female Professors has increased by 48% over the last 5 years, from 75 to 111.
As at 31 July 2014, the percentage of Professorial staff who are female was 23%, the target set in the Strategic Plan 2010-2015.
Page 11
Headcount
31 July 2013 31 July 2014
Female Male Female Male
Research 442 725 478 792
Teaching 225 192 253 206
Lecturer 186 257 189 255
SL/Reader 131 282 142 276
Professor* 101 357 109 371 * Refers to Academic Professors – there are three additional Teaching/Research Professors who are counted within the Teaching/Research category.
The percentage growth of female staff is greater than that for male growth in all categories bar Research, whilst female staff are in the majority as Teachers.
The male staff growth rate was negative at Lecturer level and continued to fall at Senior Lecturer/Reader level. There was growth at Professorial level but at a rate that half that of female growth.
A greater proportion of female Researchers, Lecturers and Senior Lecturers/Readers leave the University. Female Lecturers and Professors are less likely to leave the University than their male peers.
Despite the increased growth rate for female Academic staff, the overall picture is of a declining number as females move up the pipeline from Lecturer to Professor. The opposite is true for males.
Although we are promoting a greater proportion of female Academic staff, we are losing female talent at critical points in the pipeline (Research, Lecturer and Senior Lecturer/Reader).
A dual strategy of recruiting female talent into Professorial positions and supporting, retaining and promoting women internally, is required to meet this KPI.
Page 12
3.1 Staff Costs as a Percentage of Income
The above chart has been taken from the ‘Annual Report and Financial Statement 2012/13’
Staff costs as a percentage of total income fell slightly in 2012/13 from 51.8% to 51.6%. In this period total income rose by 7.4% (£446.9m to £479.8m), and staff costs rose by 7% (£231.3m to £247.5m).
A similar trend is seen in both the Russell Group and the wider HE sector. Pay costs have been kept under review, including pay awards in line with
the HE sector and wider public sector and there has been no significant increased pay costs associated with promotions and exceptional contribution awards.
Fee income from the UK and EU undergraduate market is growing significantly and research income increased by 5.1% in 2012/13, which impacts on this KPI.
Page 13
3.2 Spend on Reward Spend referred to in this section is the annualised increase in salary following the award of the increment/promotion, or lump sum where applicable. This spend is over and above base pay.
Total Spend Ave Spend per
Employee No of
Employees
Incremental Progression £2,276,886 £852.13 2672
Exceptional Contribution Awards £371,009 £1,008.18 368
Annual Promotions Round £536,484 £2,373.82 226
Professorial & Equivalent Salary Review
£971,770 £3,950.29 246
£-
£500
£1,000
£1,500
£2,000
£2,500
£3,000
£3,500
£4,000
£4,500
£-
£500,000
£1,000,000
£1,500,000
£2,000,000
£2,500,000
IncrementalProgression
ExceptionalContribution
Awards
AnnualPromotions Round
Professorial SalaryReview
Ave
Sp
en
d p
er
Emp
loye
e
Tota
l Sp
en
d
Spend on Reward 2013/14
Total Spend Ave Spend per Employee
Incremental progression accounted for 55% of the reward spend. During 2013/14 there has been a fundamental review of the University’s
reward and recognition strategy. Proposals being developed include the offer of more flexible solutions to how additional contribution and excellent performance is recognised and rewarded, including the timeliness of reward.
Page 14
3.3 Sickness Absence
HE Ave is the Higher Education Average taken from the DLA Piper Workforce Performance Indicators survey 2013.
Through Talent First, HR staff are engaging with managers to promote the health and wellbeing of their staff, and the proactive management of sickness absence. The focus has also been on encouraging staff to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing and make healthy changes to their lifestyles. The Juice Everyday Health and Wellbeing offer includes a full program of activities, advice and health campaigns including Positive Mental Health and Healthy Heart. An enhanced counselling provision and employee assistance programme for all staff has been introduced, provided by Health Assured.
Academic All
HE Ave UoS HE Ave UoS
Average Working Days Lost Per Employee pa 3.9 1.9 6.4 5.0
Average Length of Absence 9.8 9.9 5.4 4.7
Percentage of Absence which is Long-Term 58.2% 69.9% 48.7% 53.9%
The Higher Education sector has difficulties in capturing sickness absence
for Academic staff, and the Average Working Days Lost Per Employee pa figures in the table above highlight that our data capture for this group is poor compared with the sector average, although we seem to have reasonable data capture for other staff categories.
There is a greater proportion of long-term sickness absence amongst
academics and the average length of absence is also high, a likely result of a lack of recording of short-term absences.
Work is ongoing to identify priority areas experiencing higher levels of sickness absence and working with line managers to resolve sickness absence cases as speedily as possible and implement preventative measures for the future. This work is supported by a new case management process and implementation of streamlined pathways to manage sickness cases.
Page 15
3.3.1 Cost of Sickness Absence Cost of sickness absence is based on an individual’s annual salary as at the start date of the absence (or as at 1 August 2013 if absence commenced prior to this), plus 28% (reflecting average employers NI and pension contributions).
£4,323,645
£4,955,051
£4,772,396
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Cost of Sickness Absence 2011/12 - 2013/14
£2,670,869
£2,101,528
£983,298
£3,789,099
£2,710,889
£2,061,507
Long-Term Short-Term Mental Health Physical Health Faculties Professional &Support Services
Length Reason Area
Breakdown of Cost of Sickness Absence 2013/14
It is recognised that the cost of sickness absence is significant. In addition to the costs above, in some instances there is the cost of cover, and the impact on the individual, department and productivity.
A more preventative approach is key to reducing sickness absence and the associated costs.
Page 16
4.1 We are Proud 2008 2012 2014 78% 86% 94%
87%
96%
80%
87%
83%
90%
75%
83%
66%
72%
76%
84%
I would recommend the University as anexcellent place to work
I would recommend the University as anexcellent place to study
I feel a strong sense of belonging to theUniversity of Sheffield
I am committed to the University’s goals
I feel inspired to do my best work every day
I plan to be working here in 12 months time
Staff Survey 2014: Perceptions
2012 2014
This KPI is a key measure of staff engagement and the improvement target for 2014 was set at 86% by the University’s Council.
The response in 2014 exceeded this target and was a significant increase on the response of 78% in 2008, a cause for celebration.
The above table shows the responses of staff to a group of key questions which demonstrate commitment to the values and direction of the University.
87% of staff would recommend the University as an excellent place to work and 83% of staff feel inspired to do their best work every day.
It is a reflection of the quality of the service provided to students that 94% of staff would recommend the University as an excellent place to study.
These results are being discussed and taken forward across the institution to ensure full engagement and communication to all staff.
Page 17
65%
79%
81%
78%
93%
89%
71%
94%
87%
54%
76%
80%
71%
87%
82%
66%
86%
86%
55%
64%
70%
76%
86%
61%
86%
75%
I feel valued by the University
My immediate manager/supervisor keeps me informedabout things I should know about
Overall, my manager/supervisor does a good job ofmanaging me
The University Leaders lead and manage the Universitywell
I feel the University delivers a good quality service tostudents
Have you had a Staff Review and Development Scheme(SRDS) discussion [or annual review/appraisal for clinical
staff] with your line manager/reviewer within the last…
I feel fairly paid for the work I do
I am proud to work for the University
I would recommend the University as an excellent placeto work
Staff Survey 2014: Engagement
University of Sheffield 2012 Positive % HEI norm Positive % University of Sheffield 2014 Positive %
The above table compares some of the results from key questions in the staff survey which measure employee engagement for the University in relation to other Higher Education institutions supported by Capita, our survey provider.
Positive responses to these questions demonstrate high levels of employee satisfaction, which in turn impact on the University providing a high quality service to students.
Making comparisons with other HEIs is helpful in placing employee engagement results into context and highlighting our strengths and areas for improvement.