Category: HESA spring 2025

  • HESA Spring 2025: staff | Wonkhe

    HESA Spring 2025: staff | Wonkhe

    HESA Spring 2025 kicks off in earnest with a full release of the staff data for 2023-24.

    Unlike in previous years, there’s been no early release of the headlines – the statistics release (which provides an overview at sector level) and the full data release (which offers detail at provider level) have both turned up on the same day.

    Staff data has, in previous years, generally been less volatile than student data. Whereas recruitment can and does lurch alarmingly around based on strategic priorities, government vacillation about student visas, and the vagaries of the student market – staff employment tends to be something with a merciful degree of permanency. Even if it isn’t the same staff working under the same terms and conditions, it does tend to need broadly the same number of people.

    With the increasing financial pressures felt by universities you would expect 2023-24 to be a deviation from this norm.

    Starters and leavers

    We’ll start by looking at the numbers of starters and leavers from each provider. This chart shows the change in academic staff numbers year on year between your chosen year and the year before (as the thick bars) and the total number of full and part time staff in the year of your choice (as the thin bars). Over on the other side of the visualisation under the controls you can see total staff numbers, broken down into full and part time as a time series – mouse over a provider on the main chart to change the provider focus here. You can filter by year, and (for the main chart) mode of employment.

    [Full screen]

    What’s apparent is that across quite a lot of the sector academic staff numbers didn’t change that much. There were some outliers at both end – Coventry University had 585 less academic staff in 2023-24 than 2022-23, while Cardiff University has 565 more (yes, the same Cardiff University that confirmed plans for 400 full time redundancies yesterday).

    If you’ve been following sector news this may surprise you – last year saw many providers announce voluntary or compulsory redundancies. The Queen Mary University of London UCU branch has been tracking these announcements over time.

    Schemes like this take time for a university to run – there is a mandatory consultation period, followed (hopefully) by some finessing of the scheme and then negotiations with individual staff members. It is not a way to make a quick, in year, saving. Oftentimes the original announcement is of a far higher number of staff redundancies than actually end up happening.

    Subject level

    If you work in a university or other higher education provider, you’ll know that stuff like this very often happens across particular departments and faculties rather than the whole university. I can’t offer you faculty level from public data, but there is data available by cost centre.

    [Full screen]

    Cost centres are usually used in financial data, and do not cleanly map to visible structures within universities. Here you can select a provider and choose between cost centre groups and cost centres as two levels of detail. I’ve added an option to select contract type – in the main I suggest you leave this as academic (excluding atypical).

    Zero hours

    I’m sure I say this every year, but not all providers return data for non-academic staff (in England they are not required to), and an “atypical” contract usually refers to a very short period of work (a single guest lecture or suchlike). There is a pervasive myth that these are “zero hours” contracts – even though HESA publishes data on these separately:

    Here’s a chart showing the terms of employment and pay arrangements related to zero hours contracts for 2023-24. You can see the majority of these are academic in nature, with a roughly even split between fixed term and open-ended terms. The majority (around 4,075) are paid by the hour.

    [Full screen]

    This represents a small year-on-year growth in the use of this kind of contract – in 2022-23, there were 3,915 academic staff on a zero hour contract

    Subject, age, and pay

    I often wonder about the conditions of academic staff across subject areas, and how this pertains to the age of the academics involved and how much they are paid. This visualisation allows use to view age against salary (relating to groups of spine points on the standard New JNCHES pay scale used in most larger providers).

    [Full screen]

    As you’d expect, overall there is a positive correlation between age and salary – if you are an older academic you are likely to be paid more. This is particularly pronounced in design, creative, and performing arts: where staff are likely to be older and better paid on average. Compare the physical sciences, where more staff are younger and spine points are lower.

    This chart allows you to select a cost centre (either a group or individual cost centre), and filter by academic employment function (teaching, research, both…) and contract level (senior academics and professors, others…). There’s a range of years on offer as well.

    Ethnicity

    The main news stories that tend to come out of this release relate to academic staff characteristics, and specifically the low number of Black professors. There is some positive movement on that front this year, though the sector at that level is in no way representative of staff as a whole, the student body, or wider society.

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • Making SEISA official | Wonkhe

    Making SEISA official | Wonkhe

    Developing a new official statistic is a process that can span several years.

    Work on SEISA began in 2020 and this blog outlines the journey to official statistics designation and some key findings that have emerged along the way. Let’s firstly recap why HESA needed a new deprivation index.

    The rationale behind pursuing this project stemmed from an Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) report which noted that post-16 education statistics lacked a UK-wide deprivation metric. Under the Code of Practice for Statistics, HESA are required to innovate and fill identified statistical gaps that align with our area of specialism.

    Fast forward almost six years and the UK Statistics Authority have reiterated the importance of UK-wide comparable statistics in their response to the 2024 Lievesley Review.

    Breaking down barriers

    While higher education policy may be devolved, all nations have ambitions to ensure there is equal opportunity for all. Policymakers and the higher education sector agree that universities have a pivotal role in breaking down barriers to opportunity and that relevant data is needed to meet this mission. Having UK-wide comparable statistics relating to deprivation based on SEISA can provide the empirical evidence required to understand where progress is being made and for this to be used across the four nations to share best practice.

    In developing SEISA, we referred to OSR guidance to produce research that examines the full value of a new statistic before it is classed as an ‘official statistic in development’. We published a series of working papers in 2021 and 2022, with the latter including comparisons to the Indices of Deprivation (the main area-based measure utilised among policymakers at present). We also illustrated why area-based measures remain useful in activities designed to promote equal opportunity.

    Our research indicated that the final indexes derived from the Indices of Deprivation in each nation were effective at catching deprived localities in large urban areas, such as London and Glasgow, but that SEISA added value by picking up deprivation in towns and cities outside of these major conurbations. This included places located within former mining, manufacturing and industrial communities across the UK, like Doncaster or the Black Country in the West Midlands, as well as Rhondda and Caerphilly in Wales. The examples below come from our interactive maps for SEISA using Census 2011 data.

    An area of Doncaster that lies within decile 4 of the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (2019)

    An area of Caerphilly that lies within decile 5 of the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (2019)

    We also observed that SEISA tended to capture a greater proportion of rural areas in the bottom quintile when compared with the equivalent quintile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation in each nation.

    Furthermore, in Scotland, the bottom quintile of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation does not contain any locations in the Scottish islands, whereas the lowest quintile of SEISA covers all council areas in the country. These points are highlighted by the examples below from rural Shropshire and the Shetland Islands, which also show the benefit that SEISA offers by being based on smaller areas (in terms of population size) than those used to form the Indices of Deprivation. That is, drawing upon a smaller geographic domain enables pockets of deprivation to be identified that are otherwise surrounded by less deprived neighbourhoods.

    A rural area of Shropshire that is placed in decile 5 of the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (2019)

    An area of the Shetland Islands that is within decile 7 of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (2020)

    Becoming an official statistic

    Alongside illustrating value, our initial research had to consider data quality and whether our measure correlated with deprivation as expected. Previous literature has highlighted how the likelihood of experiencing deprivation increases if you are a household that is;

    • On a low income
    • Lives in social housing
    • A lone parent family
    • In poor health

    Examining how SEISA was associated with these variables gave us the assurance that it was ready to become an ‘official statistic in development’. As we noted when we announced our intention for the measure to be assigned this badge for up to two years, a key factor we needed to establish during this time period was the consistency in the findings (and hence methodological approach) when Census 2021-22 data became available in Autumn 2024.

    Recreating SEISA using the latest Census records across all nations, we found there was a high level of stability in the results between the 2011 and 2021-22 Census collections. For instance, our summary page shows the steadiness in the associations between SEISA and income, housing, family composition and health, with an example of this provided below.

    The association between SEISA and family composition in Census 2011 and 2021-22

    Over the past twelve months, we’ve been gratified to see applications of SEISA in the higher education sector and beyond. We’ve had feedback on how practitioners are using SEISA to support their widening participation activities in higher education and interest from councils working on equality of opportunity in early years education. The measure is now available via the Local Insight database used by local government and charities to source data for their work.

    It’s evident therefore that SEISA has the potential to help break down barriers to opportunity across the UK and is already being deployed by data users to support their activities. The demonstrable value of SEISA and its consistency following the update to Census 2021-22 data mean that we can now remove the ‘in development’ badge and label SEISA as an official statistic.

    View the data for SEISA based on the Census 2021-22 collection, alongside a more detailed insight into why SEISA is now an official statistic, on the HESA website.

    Please feel free to submit any feedback you have on SEISA to [email protected].

    Read HESA’s latest research releases and if you would like to be kept updated on future publications, you can sign-up to our mailing list.

    Source link