Employment Monitoring Report 2007/2008
Race Relations (Amendment) Act:
Employment monitoring report 2007/2008
- Introduction
- Employees
- Recruitment
- Promotion
- Training
- Disciplinary Action
- Grievances
- Employees leaving the authority
- Performance Assessment
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- Appendices
1. Introduction
This report has been produced in line with Tameside Council’s duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. These duties require the monitoring of specified aspects of employment practices and to produce an annual monitoring report. As a result of the introduction of the Disability and Gender Equality Duties, figures are now also analysed for disability and gender. Whilst there is no specific legislative requirement, as an Age Positive Champion the authority also analyses employment statistics by age within this report. This was done for the first time in the 2006/2007 report.
1.1 Range of monitoring required.
Legislation requires Tameside Council to monitor employees, promotion and training as well as applicants for jobs. In addition, as an organisation with more than 150 employees the authority is required to monitor:
- Training Received
- Grievances
- Disciplinary Action
- Ending Employment with the authority
- Any benefit or disadvantage from performance assessment.
For each of these areas this report analyses:
- The way in which data is collected
- The results from the data, either as a snapshot at March 31st 2008 or during 2007/2008, as appropriate.
- Analysis of the data by each equality theme.
Sections 10, 11 and 12 of this report detail conclusions, progress made from recommendations in previous reports and recommendations resulting from the analysis of the 2007/2008 data.
2. Employees
2.1 Data collection
The Council's Personnel/Payroll system, Trent, includes information on the ethnicity, age, disability status and gender of employees. Information for ethnicity, disability and gender is collected when an individual commences employment with the council. Employees are then asked to update this information on a regular basis. For example, an employee census of all non-schools staff was carried out in March 2006 and was repeated in March 2008.
2.2 Results
Data at March 31st 2008 is shown in Appendix 1a for ethnicity, 1b for Gender, 1c for Age and 1d for disability.
This information covers all permanent and temporary employees and does not use the same definition as the related Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI’s) as the definitions for these indicators excludes temporary employees with less than 12 months service.
2.3 Analysis
2.3.1 Ethnicity
Throughout 2007/08 efforts have continued to raise the proportion of staff with ethnic origin data available. 4 Service areas now have data on all of their employees. At 31st March 2008 there was no ethnicity data available for only 4.6% of the workforce compared with 6.7% at 31st March 2007.
2.3.2 Gender
At 31st March 2008, 77% of the Council’s workforce, including teachers, was female. BVPI data for the proportion of senior (top 5%) employees who are female (excluding teachers) was 50% at 31st March 2008 increasing from 47% at 31st March 2007.
The authority is aware that occupational segregation may have an impact on these figures. Further work will be required to investigate this issue. The authority has been involved in work through the Tameside Education Business Partnership (TEBP) to profile non-stereotypical job profiles to year 8 school students. Volunteers from the Council workforce with non-traditional roles (e.g. a male secretary or female motor mechanic) have met young people in Tameside to talk about their work. Such initiatives are aimed at tackling occupational segregation in the long-term.
2.3.3 Age
Data on the age profile of the workforce in Appendix 1c shows that there is a higher proportion of staff in the higher age bands. It is therefore likely that some service areas will have a significant proportion of their workforce eligible to retire over the next decade. This may be mitigated to some extent by changes to Council policy in line with the requirements of age equality legislation and the impact of national changes to Pension arrangements. These have resulted in considerably more employees working beyond their first possible retirement date.
In order to increase the proportion of younger employees, the Council continues to recruit modern apprentices. The Council is a member of a recruitment consortium, Now People, together with eight other councils in the area, and as part of that initiative a web site targeting careers advisors and young people is being launched in September 2008. Government targets on participation in further and higher education however are likely to move the cohort of employees normally recruited at 16 and 18 up to the age of 21.
2.3.4 Disability
3.1% of the Council’s workforce had declared that they are disabled under the definition of the Disability Discrimination Act at 31st March 2008. There were however significant variations between different service areas with the 1.7% figure for schools offsetting higher levels in other service areas due to the large number of staff in the schools sector. Increasing the proportion of staff that are disabled within the schools workforce may present a significant challenge giving the level of independence of the schools recruitment process. Future improvements in this area may have to be led by the schools sector.
Further work will be required to help increase the confidence of people working for the Council to declare their disability status. The Council is currently a ‘two-tick’ authority, a national accreditation from the Job Centre Plus that recognises employees with positive employment practices towards disabled people.
3. Recruitment
3.1 Data Collection
The standard application form includes a section to collect equalities monitoring information from applicants. The recruitment administration system makes it possible to analyse the progress made by applicants.
3.2 Results
Details on employees recruited during 2007/2008 are shown in Appendix 2a for ethnicity, 2b for Gender, 2c for Age and 2d for disability.
3.3 Analysis
The analysis below is based on examining the ‘equality ratio’. The equality ratio measures the percentage chance of obtaining a job. To show equality this ratio would be the same across all the categories being analysed. The analysis below focuses on where this is not the case highlighting areas where further improvement activity may be appropriate.
3.3.1 Ethnicity
The data shows a spread of outcomes, with 8.2% of white applicants, 6.5% of BME and 5.2% of applicants not disclosing their ethnic origin succeeding.
Further analysis has shown that the proportion of applicants who have chosen not to disclose their ethnic origin has risen markedly – historically it tended to be under 5% of all applicants, but for 07/08 had risen to 62%. This increase has happened during a period when the proportion of applicants applying online has also risen substantially, and analysis has shown that the employees not disclosing their ethnic origin are moat likely to have applied online. Checking the equalities data element of the on line form showed that the “undisclosed” option had been programmed as the first choice presented to applicants, and as the default option.
The form has now been redesigned and the expectation is that the proportion of applicants not disclosing their ethnic origin will decline back to the levels seen in previous years
3.3.2 Gender
The comparative success rates for female and male applicants are different, identical, at 7.2% and 4.4% respectively. A further analysis has been carried out to establish the extent to which this has been driven by occupational segregation: in almost exactly half (49%) of all jobs advertised, 80% or more of all applicants came from the same gender, and for 21% of the jobs advertised, all the applicants came from the same gender, and the variation in success rates is driven by differing volumes of applicants for stereotypically “male” and “female” job roles.
3.3.3 Age
The success rates by age show a broadly similar pattern to 2006/2007 (the first year in which this data had been analysed) with a broadly similar success rates up to the 40 to 50 age band and then tapering off.
3.3.4 Disability
The data shows that no applicants with a disability successfully applied for a job during 2007/2008. Research has shown another issue with the online form, in that “Not disabled” was the default option, and this lead to a significant decline in the volume of applicants who chose to state that they had a disability. The proportion of applicants with a disability who reached the interview stage is double that for non disabled applicants, which shows that the Council is carrying out its policy of guaranteeing an interview to applicants with a disability who meet the essential criteria for a job.
4. Promotion
There have been some issues nationally with identifying the definition of promotion with different public authorities adopting different definitions. For 2007/08, Tameside Council has analysed current employees applying for jobs and examined success rates for, ethnic origin, gender and disability. The Commission for Equalities and Human Rights was approached for assistance in agreeing a definition of ‘promotion’, but has not as yet responded.
4.1 Data Collection
Data is available from the Recruitment monitoring system, which is able to identify applications from current employees.
4.2 Results
Details on employees promoted during 2007/2008 are shown in Appendix 3a for ethnicity, 3b for Gender, 3c for Age and 3d for disability.
4.3 Analysis
4.3.1 Ethnicity
The data shows an apparent problem, in that whilst the success rates for BME applicants and those who chose not to disclose their ethnic origin are virtually identical, the success rate for white employees is substantially higher. As noted above, the underlying issue is related to the problems with the online application form outlined above.
4.3.2 Gender
The data shows no significant difference between genders, with 17.5% of female applicants being successful and 18.1% of male applications succeeding.
4.3.3 Age
Unlike 2006/7 (the first year for which this analysis was available) the success rate profile for internal applicants for promotion differs from that for external applicants for jobs with the Council, in that the promotion data shows an increase in success rates with age up to the 40 to 50 age band, and then a marked decline. Further data from future years will be required to establish long term trends.
4.3.4 Disability
As with the data for external applicants, there is a clear apparent problem in that no applicants for promotion who classed themselves as having a disability were successful. This is also likely to be linked to the online application form issue.
5. Training
5.1 Data Collection
Monitoring data for those attending training is now obtained from the Trent personnel system. This is a change from the previous system of asking delegates to complete feedback forms and ensures consistency in the data recorded. As noted below, it also means that age data is now also available. The data covers courses run by the Corporate OD team and the Workforce Development and Training Unit that provides training for employees within Services for Children and Young People.
5.2 Results
Data for training delivered during 2007/08 is available at Appendix 4a for ethnicity, 4b for Gender, 4c for disability and 4d for Age: this is the first year for which Age data has been collected.
5.3 Analysis
5.3.1 Ethnicity
The available data shows that the proportion of people attending training from a BME background is higher than the proportion of BME staff in the workforce as a whole (6.1%, compared to 3.9%). This difference is not likely to be statistically significant because of the small number of people involved.
5.3.2 Gender
The available data shows a small gap between the number of males and females attending training and the numbers of males and females in the workforce as a whole (20% male attendees, compared to 23% male employees in the workforce). This difference is relatively small given the proportion of the workforce involved and therefore unlikely to be statistically significant.
5.3.3 Disability
The available data shows a higher proportion of disabled employees are accessing training when compared to the proportion of disabled staff in the overall workforce (4.7% compared to 3.1%).
6. Disciplinary Action
6.1 Data collection
Data on employees who have gone through the formal disciplinary process is monitored within the Human Resources workload monitoring system. This system gives data on cases that have been through the formal disciplinary system and as a result information is not available on employees who have only received a verbal warning. Further employee data is obtained from employee records on the Personnel Information system.
6.2 Results
2007/08 data is available at Appendix 5a for ethnicity, 5b for gender, 5c for age and 5d for disability.
6.3 Analysis
The number of employees going through the formal disciplinary procedure during the course of a single year is relatively small and as a result analysis by equality groups is not statistically robust. It can be used however to identify areas upon which to focus future work.
6.3.1 Ethnicity
It was noted in the report for 2006/07 that there appeared to be a considerable difference between the percentage of BME and White employees who had been disciplined (2.5% compared to 0.9%). Monitoring data for previous years had not shown similar differences and it was felt that the disparity was caused by a specific incident where a number of BME employees were disciplined. The 2007/08 appears to show a reversion to the long term trend with 0.4% of BME employees being disciplined compared to 0.5% of White employees.
6.3.2 Gender
Data for gender indicates no significant difference between genders (0.5% for men compared to 0.4% for women) There was a significant difference identified in the 05/06 Report but it was suggested that this may have been a short tern blip, which appears to be the case.
6.3.3 Age
This is the first report to include an analysis by age. The usual note of caution due to the small numbers involved applies, but there is an apparent correlation between age and the likelihood of being disciplined. As Appendix 5c shows, 12.5% of all employees under 20 were disciplined during the year: this is however not a large group, as the age analysis of the workforce in Appendix 1c shows. Further data will be needed for future years to see if there is a trend
6.3.4 Disability
The analysis shows an apparent issue in that 0.9% of employees who have classified themselves as being disabled where disciplined compared to 0.2% of employees who had not classified themselves as being disabled employees. However, 1% of employees who had not provided any information on their disability status where disciplined during 2006/2007, and numerically they actually formed the largest single group.
7. Grievances
7.1 Data Collection
The workload monitoring system within Human Resources gives us data on employees who have gone through the grievance process. The available data does not cover employees whose grievances are dealt with informally. Further data is gathered from employee records on the Personnel Information system.
7.2 Results
Data for 2007/2008 is available at Appendix 6a for ethnicity, 6b for Gender, 6c for disability and 6d for age. In addition as relatively small numbers of employees have pursued grievances, data does not tend to be statistically robust enough to inform analysis by equality groups.
7.3 Analysis
7.3.1 Ethnicity
During 2007/08 employees from a BME background submitted no formal grievances. As a result White employees were more likely to submit a grievance than BME employees. This disparity was not seen in monitoring reports in previous years and is unlikely to be statistically significant due to the low number of staff involved.
7.3.2 Gender
There is no significant difference in terms of gender: 0.5% for men and 0.4% for women.
7.3.3 Disability
There is an apparent difference in terms of disability, with 0.9% of employees with a disability submitting a grievance compared to 0.2% of employees without a disability. However the small numbers involved are best exemplified by the 1% of employees who have not provided any information on their disability status being the biggest single category
8. Employees leaving the authority
8.1 Data Collection
The TRENT system contains data on employees’ reasons for leaving that are supplied by employees prior to leaving the Council. Where changes are caused by the authorities actions, for instance in the case of dismissal, the Council provides information concerning the employees reason for leaving.
8.2 Results
2007/08 data on employees’ reason for leaving the authority is available at Appendix 7a for ethnicity, 7b for gender, 7c for age and 7d for disability
8.3 Analysis
8.3.1 Ethnicity
The data in Appendix 7a shows a broadly similar pattern when analysed by ethnicity and reason for leaving. A higher proportion of BME employees are likely to leave due to the expiry of fixed term contracts than white employees (18.8% compared to 12.9%). This seems to be caused by a higher proportion of BME employees being in fixed term employment and the same difference was also noted in the 2005/6 report.
Further work will be required to determine if BME employees are more likely to be on fixed term contracts and to discover why this is the case. This may involve consultation with the Council’s BME staff network, which is currently based in Adult Services. It may be appropriate to expand this network to other areas of the Council and seek BME employees’ views on why there are currently disparities in contract type by ethnicity.
There also appears to be a difference in the proportion of BME and White employees taking early retirement (4.2% for BME employees compared to 9% for white employees). This is likely to be due to the respective age profiles of BME and White employees and the younger age profile of the BME population in Tameside.
8.3.2 Gender
A higher proportion of women appear to be leaving employment with the authority for unknown reasons (13.8% for women compared to 5.2% for men). Men are more likely to be dismissed (6% of males compared to 3.3% of females). Similar outcomes could be seen in the previous year.
Further investigation on the causes of these figures is required before action can be taken to make improvements. It is likely that occupational segregation has caused of some of these differences.
8.3.3 Disability
Due to the relatively low number of disabled people who are employed by the authority, any differences between reasons for leaving the authority are unlikely to be statistically significant. Where this is the case further information will be examined to determine the reasons for any differences.
Disabled people were marginally more likely to be dismissed than non-disabled people (4.5% compared to 3.4%) and more likely to take ill health retirement (13.6% compared to 1.7%). Although there figures are unlikely to be statistically robust, further work is required to determine the reasons for these differences before action can be taken to address any issues identified.
8.3.4 Age
Some factors such as normal retirement, ill health retirement and death in service are linked either directly or indirectly to age. There are significant variations across different age bands for employees leaving employment with the authority for voluntary reasons. It is likely that this reflects the desire of employees to continue to develop and seek fresh employment opportunities.
The under 20 age group is significantly more likely to be subject to dismissal than any other age group, which marks a reversal from the previous year when the 50 to under 60 group was the highest. This shows the dangers in drawing conclusions from a small amount of apparently volatile data.
9. Performance Assessment
Tameside Council has in place a comprehensive Employee Development Review process. This ensures that every employee has a one-to-one review with their manager on an annual basis at a minimum. The review gives an assessment based around core competencies for different job roles. The process focuses on work targets from the previous year, targets for the current year, evaluation of training received in the previous year and future training needs. The assessment focuses purely on performance within the job role and does not influence decisions on promotion or pay issues. It therefore does not require inclusion within this report.
10. Conclusions
The annual workforce monitoring report has been produced by the Council in response to the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act since 2002/03. The report for 2006/07 was the first to be produced by Tameside Council covering all employment equalities monitoring issues and gave a similar opportunity to review progress for a wider cross-section of equality groups.
The 2007/2008 report builds on previous work and gives a further opportunity to monitor trends over time.
11. Recommendations from 2006/2007 report
A number of detailed recommendations were made in the 2006/2007 monitoring report. Progress against those recommendations is outlined below
11.1 Employees
- That an employee census of all non-schools staff be repeated in March 2008 to update the workforce profile information. Achieved: census carried out in March 2008
- Further investigation of occupational segregation and its impact on the gender balance of the workforce. It is recognised that tackling occupational segregation involves long-term work and the gender balance of the workforce is not likely to change significantly over the next five years or so. The authority should continue with initiatives such as non-stereotypical job profiling with school students. In progress: equality impact assessment for pay & grading review to produce baseline data. Nowyoungpeople.co.uk web site will give careers advisors more information on local government careers.
- That the Council works closely with the schools sector to increase the proportion of disabled employees applying for jobs and declaring their disability.
- That the Council continues with work to increase the confidence of people working for the Council to declare their disability status. The Council should aim to retain its ‘two-tick’ accreditation from the Job Centre Plus. In progress: submission made and awaiting approval for 2008.
11.2 Recruitment
- Further investigation of disparities in short listing and appointments of BME job applicants. This may involve internal consultation work via the Employee Survey, or with the BME staff network from Adult Services. In progress: question under consideration for 2008 Employee survey
- Further investigation of disparities in short listing and appointments by gender. This ties in with work to investigate how occupational segregation affects the profile of the workforce. In progress: pay and grading review data will be used to define job families for further analysis
- Continue with work to increase the confidence of disabled people to apply for jobs with the authority and to declare their disability at the application stage. Initiatives such as annual jobs fairs and work experience pilots for job-ready people with learning disabilities and mental health needs should also continue.
11.3 Promotion
- That the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights be approached for further assistance with the interpretation of the definition of promotion. In progress: request made but no response
- Further investigation is required of disparities in internal promotion by ethnicity. This may involve internal consultation with the Council’s BME staff network based in Adult Services, or the expansion of this network to other areas of the Council.
- Further investigation is required to determine the reasons for disparities in internal promotion by gender. This ties in with work to investigate how occupational segregation affects the profile of the workforce. In progress: pay and grading review data will be used to define job families for further analysis
- Further investigation is required to determine the reasons for declining promotion rates from the 50 and above age groups.
11.4 Training
- That data collection processes be improved during 2007/08. This will involve collecting information on the age of employees accessing training. Achieved: age data included in 2007/2008 report
11.5 Disciplinary Action
- That data collection processes be improved during 2007/08. This will involve collecting information on the age of employees going through the formal disciplinary process. Achieved: age data included in 2007/2008 report
- That trend data for disciplinary action by employees’ gender, age and disability be examined from 2007-08 onwards. Achieved: in 2007/2008 report
11.6 Grievances
- That data collection processes be improved during 2007/08. This will involve collecting information on the age of employees going through the grievance process. Achieved: age data included in 2007/2008 report
- That trend data for grievances by employees’ gender, age and disability be examined from 2007-08 onwards. Achieved: in 2007/2008 report
11.7 Employees leaving the authority
- Further investigation is required to determine why BME staff are more likely to be on fixed term contracts and therefore be more likely than white employees to leave the authority. This may involve internal consultation via the Employee Survey, or with the BME staff network based in Adult Services. In progress: relevant question being considered for 2008 employee survey
- Further investigation is required to determine why there are disparities in leaving rates, dismissals and contract type by gender. This ties in with work to investigate how occupational segregation affects the profile of the workforce. In progress: pay and grading review data will be used to define job families for further analysis
- That trend data about reasons for leaving the authority be analysed by employees’ gender, age and disability be examined from 2007-08 onwards. Achieved: in 2007/2008 report
Appendices
- Appendix 1a - Workforce by ethnic origin 31/03/08
- Appendix 1b - Workforce by gender 31/03/08
- Appendix 1c - Workforce by age 31/03/08
- Appendix 1d - Workforce by disability 31/03/08
- Appendix 2a - Recruitment during 2007/08 by ethnicity
- Appendix 2b - Recruitment during 2007/08 by gender
- Appendix 2c - Recruitment during 2007/08 by age
- Appendix 2d - Recruitment during 2007/08 by disability
- Appendix 3a - Employees promoted during 2007/08 by ethnicity
- Appendix 3b - Employees promoted during 2007/08 by gender
- Appendix 3c - Employees promoted during 2007/08 by disability
- Appendix 3d - Employees promoted during 2007/08 by age
- Appendix 4a - Training delivered during 2007/08 by ethnicity
- Appendix 4b - Training delivered during 2007/08 by gender
- Appendix 4c - Training delivered during 2007/08 by age
- Appendix 4d - Training delivered during 2007/2008 by disability
- Appendix 5a - Employees disciplined during 2007/08 by ethnicity
- Appendix 5b - Employees disciplined during 2007/08 by gender
- Appendix 5c - Training delivered during 2007/2008 by age
- Appendix 5d - Employees disciplined during 2007/08 by disability
- Appendix 6a - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2007/08 by ethnicity
- Appendix 6b - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2007/08 by gender
- Appendix 6c - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2007/2008 by age
- Appendix 6d - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2007/08 by disability
- Appendix 7a - Leavers during 2007/08 by ethnicity
- Appendix 7b - Leavers during 2007/08 by gender
- Appendix 7c - Leavers during 2007/08 by disability
- Appendix 7d - Leavers during 2007/08 by age
Appendix 1a - Workforce by ethnic origin 31/03/08
| Service | White% | BME% | Unknown% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Borough Solicitor | 92.7 | 7.3 | 0.0 |
| Borough Treasurer Service | 92.3 | 5.1 | 2.6 |
| Human Resources Service | 99.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| Pensions Service | 94.4 | 4.8 | 0.8 |
| ICT & Transformational Services | 93.2 | 6.0 | 0.9 |
| Policy & Performance Service | 92.9 | 7.1 | 0.0 |
| Executive Support Service | 93.2 | 5.8 | 1.0 |
| Economy And Environment | 92.0 | 2.6 | 5.4 |
| Neighbourhood & Community | 91.9 | 5.3 | 2.9 |
| Schools Service | 90.9 | 3.1 | 6.0 |
| Services For Children & Young People | 91.3 | 5.5 | 3.2 |
| Total | 91.4 | 3.9 | 4.6 |
Appendix 1b - Workforce by gender 31/03/08
| Service | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|
| Borough Solicitor | 75.6 | 24.4 |
| Borough Treasurer Service | 53.8 | 46.2 |
| Human Resources Service | 75.2 | 24.8 |
| Pensions Service | 65.3 | 34.7 |
| ICT & Transformational Services | 71.4 | 28.6 |
| Policy & Performance Service | 42.7 | 57.3 |
| Executive Support Service | 59.2 | 40.8 |
| Economy And Environment | 40.9 | 59.1 |
| Neighbourhood & Community | 69.2 | 30.8 |
| Schools Service | 85.3 | 14.7 |
| Services For Children & Young People | 85.8 | 14.2 |
| Total | 77.0 | 23.0 |
Appendix 1c - Workforce by age 31/03/08
| Service | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30-under 40 | 40-under 50 | 50-under 60 | 60-under 65 | 65 and over |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borough Solicitor | 0.0 | 9.8 | 22.0 | 31.7 | 29.3 | 4.9 | 2.4 |
| Borough Treasurer Service | 0.0 | 33.3 | 5.1 | 35.9 | 20.5 | 5.1 | 0.0 |
| Human Resources Service | 1.0 | 15.8 | 19.8 | 25.7 | 35.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Pensions Service | 0.0 | 12.1 | 23.4 | 33.9 | 23.4 | 6.5 | 0.8 |
| ICT & Transformational Services | 1.7 | 17.1 | 25.6 | 29.9 | 22.2 | 3.4 | 0.0 |
| Policy & Performance Service | 0.0 | 35.7 | 31.0 | 14.3 | 16.7 | 2.4 | 0.0 |
| Executive Support Service | 9.7 | 13.6 | 19.4 | 29.1 | 24.3 | 3.9 | 0.0 |
| Economy And Environment | 1.7 | 11.2 | 16.4 | 29.4 | 31.5 | 7.8 | 2.0 |
| Neighbourhood & Community | 0.3 | 11.2 | 19.8 | 32.7 | 29.0 | 6.5 | 0.5 |
| Schools Service | 0.3 | 13.2 | 24.3 | 30.8 | 24.7 | 5.4 | 1.3 |
| Services For Children & Young People | 0.5 | 12.9 | 20.7 | 31.7 | 28.2 | 5.8 | 0.1 |
| Total | 0.6 | 12.8 | 22.1 | 31.1 | 26.7 | 5.8 | 1.0 |
Appendix 1d - Workforce by disability 31/03/08
| Service | Disabled % |
|---|---|
| Borough Solicitor | 7.3 |
| Borough Treasurer Service | 2.6 |
| Human Resources Service | 10.9 |
| Pensions Service | 3.2 |
| ICT & Transformational Services | 2.6 |
| Policy & Performance Service | 0.0 |
| Executive Support Service | 3.9 |
| Economy And Environment | 3.4 |
| Neighbourhood & Community | 5.9 |
| Schools Service | 1.7 |
| Services For Children & Young People | 4.7 |
| Total | 3.1 |
Appendix 2a - Recruitment during 2007/2008 by ethnic origin
| Status | White% | BME% | Unknown% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 47.7 | 54.3 | 58.1 |
| Shortlisted | 29.0 | 24.0 | 23.5 |
| Interviewed | 15.0 | 15.3 | 13.2 |
| Offered | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 8.2 | 6.5 | 5.2 |
Appendix 2b - Recruitment during 2007/2008 by gender
| Status | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 52.3 | 58.3 |
| Shortlisted | 25.6 | 24.2 |
| Interviewed | 14.9 | 13.1 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 7.2 | 4.4 |
Appendix 2c - Recruitment during 2007/2008 by age
| Status | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30-under 40 | 40-under 50 | 50-under 55 | 55-under 60 | 60-under 65 | 65+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 53.8 | 56.1 | 51.3 | 47.8 | 43.9 | 50.7 | 50.0 | 28.6 |
| Shortlisted | 30.6 | 23.3 | 25.1 | 26.2 | 28.8 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 14.3 |
| Interviewed | 9.9 | 13.1 | 15.8 | 18.0 | 20.6 | 19.1 | 16.7 | 14.3 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 5.7 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 8.0 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 8.3 | 42.9 |
Appendix 2d - Recruitment during 2007/2008 by disability
| Status | No disability % | Disability % |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 54.9 | 66.7 |
| Shortlisted | 25.1 | 5.6 |
| Interviewed | 13.9 | 27.8 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 6.1 | 0.0 |
Appendix 3a - Employees promoted during 2007/2008 by ethnic origin
| Status | White% | BME% | Unknown% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 19.4 | 31.3 | 25.0 |
| Shortlisted | 30.1 | 26.6 | 29.8 |
| Interviewed | 28.6 | 28.1 | 30.8 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 21.8 | 14.1 | 14.4 |
Appendix 3b - Employees promoted during 2007/2008 by gender
| Status | Female % | Male % |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 23.4 | 23.6 |
| Shortlisted | 31.1 | 25.2 |
| Interviewed | 28.2 | 33.1 |
| Offered | 17.4 | 18.1 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 17.4 | 18.1 |
Appendix 3c - Employees promoted during 2007/2008 by disability
| Status | Not Disabled % | Disabled % |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 23.5 | 0.0 |
| Shortlisted | 29.6 | 0.0 |
| Interviewed | 29.4 | 100.0 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 17.6 | 0.0 |
Appendix 3d - Employees promoted during 2007/2008 by age
| Status | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30-under 40 | 40-under 50 | 50-under 60 | 60-under 65 | 65+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 50.0 | 33.9 | 12.8 | 24.3 | 35.0 | 68.2 | 0.0 |
| Shortlisted | 0.0 | 32.1 | 27.5 | 25.2 | 35.8 | 18.2 | 0.0 |
| Interviewed | 33.3 | 36.7 | 33.0 | 26.1 | 22.5 | 9.1 | 0.0 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 16.7 | 15.6 | 26.6 | 24.3 | 6.7 | 4.5 | 0.0 |
Appendix 4a - Training delivered during 2007/2008 by ethnicity
| Ethnicity | Employees trained % | All Employees % |
|---|---|---|
| White | 91.8 | 91.4 |
| BME | 6.1 | 3.9 |
| Unknown | 2.1 | 4.6 |
Appendix 4b - Training delivered during 2007/2008 by gender
| Gender | Employees trained % | All Employees % |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 20.0 | 23.0 |
| Female | 80.0 | 77.0 |
Appendix 4c - Training delivered during 2007/2008 by age
| Age | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30 - under 40 | 40 - under 50 | 50 - under 60 | 60 - under 65 | Over 65 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employees trained | 0.1 | 9.6 | 19.8 | 35.2 | 30.4 | 4.7 | 0.2 |
| All Employees | 0.6 | 12.8 | 22.1 | 31.1 | 26.6 | 5.8 | 1.0 |
Appendix 4d - Training delivered during 2007/2008 by disability
| Ethnicity | Employees trained % | All Employees % |
|---|---|---|
| No disability | 95.3 | 0.0 |
| Disability | 4.7 | 3.1 |
| Not known | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Appendix 5a - Disciplinaries during 2007/2008 by ethnic origin
| Ethnic origin | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| White | 0.4 |
| BME | 0.5 |
| Unknown | 0.7 |
Appendix 5b - Disciplinaries during 2007/2008 by gender
| Gender | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| Male | 0.5 |
| Female | 0.4 |
Appendix 5c - Training delivered during 2007/2008 by age
| Age | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30 - under 40 | 40 - under 50 | 50 - under 60 | 60 - under 65 | Over 65 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of workforce | 12.5 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
Appendix 5d - Disciplinaries during 2007/2008 by disability
| Disability | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| Disabled | 0.9 |
| Not disabled | 0.2 |
| Not known | 1.0 |
Appendix 6a - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2007/2008 by ethnic origin
| Disability | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| White | 0.5 |
| BME | 0.4 |
| Unknown | 0.7 |
Appendix 6b - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2007/2008 by gender
| Gender | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| Male | 0.5 |
| Female | 0.4 |
Appendix 6c - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2007/2008 by age
| Age | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30 - under 40 | 40 - under 50 | 50 - under 60 | 60 - under 65 | Over 65 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of workforce | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
Appendix 6d - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2007/2008 by disability
| Disability | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| Disabled | 0.9 |
| Not disabled | 0.2 |
| Not known | 1.0 |
Appendix 7a - Employees leaving the Council during 2007/2008 by ethnic origin
| Reason for leaving | White % | BME % | Unknown % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 1.7 | 2.1 | 2.4 |
| Deceased | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.2 |
| Dismissed | 4.1 | 2.1 | 2.4 |
| Early Retirement | 9.0 | 4.2 | 1.2 |
| Expiry of Fixed term contract | 12.8 | 18.8 | 22.6 |
| Ill health Retirement | 1.9 | 0.0 | 1.2 |
| Normal Retirement | 8.2 | 4.2 | 2.4 |
| Unknown | 12.2 | 6.3 | 15.5 |
| Voluntary Redundancy | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Voluntary Resignation | 49.0 | 62.5 | 51.2 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Appendix 7b - Employees leaving the Council during 2007/2008 by gender
| Reason for leaving | Female % | Male % |
|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 1.5 | 2.8 |
| Deceased | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| Dismissed | 3.3 | 6.0 |
| Early Retirement | 7.3 | 12.0 |
| Expiry of Fixed term contract | 13.7 | 15.1 |
| Ill health Retirement | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Normal Retirement | 5.9 | 13.9 |
| Unknown | 13.8 | 5.2 |
| Voluntary Redundancy | 0.2 | 1.6 |
| Voluntary Resignation | 51.5 | 41.8 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Appendix 7c - Employees leaving the Council during 2007/2008 by disability
| Reason for leaving | Disabled% | Not Disabled % | Not known/Undisclosed% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Deceased | 4.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| Dismissed | 4.5 | 3.4 | 5.7 |
| Early Retirement | 18.2 | 9.3 | 4.6 |
| Expiry of Fixed term contract | 13.6 | 14.0 | 13.8 |
| Ill health Retirement | 13.6 | 1.7 | 1.1 |
| Normal Retirement | 13.6 | 8.2 | 5.7 |
| Unknown | 4.5 | 11.0 | 14.9 |
| Voluntary Redundancy | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
| Voluntary Resignation | 22.7 | 50.3 | 51.7 |
Appendix 7d - Employees leaving the Council during 2007/2008 by age
| Reason for leaving | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30-under 40 | 40-under 50 | 50-under 60 | 60-under 65 | 65and over |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 0.0 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Deceased | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 0.0 |
| Dismissed | 15.8 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 |
| Early Retirement | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.6 | 24.5 | 0.0 |
| Expiry of fixed term contract | 26.3 | 23.1 | 11.8 | 13.8 | 12.1 | 5.3 | 11.5 |
| Ill health retirement | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 5.8 | 2.6 | 0.0 |
| Normal retirement | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 46.4 | 50.0 |
| Unknown | 21.1 | 13.3 | 16.8 | 17.6 | 4.9 | 2.0 | 11.5 |
| Voluntary Redundancy | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Voluntary Resignation | 36.8 | 59.1 | 67.7 | 60.7 | 39.7 | 15.2 | 26.9 |