Benchmarking Program 2008 HR Performance Indicators for Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities for the period 2005-2007 Prepared by the Human Resources Department Queensland of Technology
COPYRIGHTS: Copyright 2003 2008 Queensland of Technology (QUT) Program Team: Graham MacAulay, Jane Banney, Henry Wong, Michael Hounslow Published by Queensland of Technology (QUT) ABN 83 791 724 622 QUT Human Resources Department, Level 2, 126 Margaret Street, Brisbane QLD 4001 AUSTRALIA. CONFIDENTIALITY & USE OF DATA: We are aware of the confidential nature of the data and information provided to us and stress that we appreciate and protect this. Under no circumstances, we will not disclose any specific information or data pertaining to your university institution to any third party without written consent or permission from your university institution. CONTENT & PUBLICATION: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information included in the publication, no warranty is given in respect thereof. Any request to reproduce material from this publication, in written or any other form, must be addressed to Queensland of Technology (QUT): Mr. HENRY WONG Senior HR Advisor (Business Development & External Relations) Human Resources Department Queensland of Technology (QUT) Level 2, 126 Margaret Street GPO Box 2434 Brisbane QLD 4001 AUSTRALIA CLIENT SERVICES & SUPPORT: Program & Administrative Enquiries: Henry Wong +61 7 3138 4080 Technical Support & Enquiries: Michael Hounslow +61 7 3138 4161 Or email us on: hrbenchmarking@qut.edu.au Page 2 of 103
Section 1 - Introduction Key Findings Summary of Results Table of Contents Introduction Page 5 Section 2 - Summary of Results Section 3 Program Results Page 8 Page 10 Staffing Ratios OH&S Measures Centralised Staffing Ratios HR Function Staffing Ratio Employment Costs as a % of Revenue Ratio of Fixed Term FTE to Ongoing FTE Ratio of Part Time FTE to Full Time FTE Female Participation Total Turnover Voluntary Employee Initiated Turnover Voluntary Initiated Turnover Involuntary Initiated Turnover Fixed Term Contract Expiration Recruitment Recruitment Rate Recruitment Source Applicant Interest Recruitment Days to Offer Recruitment Days to Start Unscheduled Absence Taken per Employee Academic Doctoral Qualifications Academic Promotion Rate Applications for Promotion Rate Academic Promotion Success Rate Honorary/Visiting Academics Age Profile Length of Service Profile Page 13 Page 19 Page 21 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 37 Page 39 Page 41 Page 43 Page 45 Page 47 Page 49 Page 51 Page 53 Page 55 Page 57 Page 59 Page 61 Page 63 Page 65 Page 67 Page 69 Page 70 Page 76 Section 4 Detailed Data Tables Detailed Data Tables Page 83 Section 5 Guide to the Report Changes to this Year's Report Important Considerations Key Definitions List of Measures User Guide - What is Benchmarking? User Guide - Medians, Percentiles and Quartiles Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 100 Page 101 Page 103 Page 3 of 103
Section 1 Introduction Understanding the program and report presentation Page 4 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Benchmarking Program 2008 Introduction The Universities HR Benchmarking Program provides a benchmarking service to its members focusing on the Australian and New Zealand Sectors with additional input from a number of South African Universities. The measures focus on the sector with 45 measures across the following categories: Staffing Profiles Academic Workforce Profile Turnover Absence Recruitment Efficient and Effectiveness Age Length of Service Occupational Health and Safety Employment Costs The program first ran as a pilot in 2003 with participation of the five ATN Universities. In 2008, 45 members have contributed data to the program. To complement the Benchmarking Program, an annual conference is organised with the objective of: Reviewing the process and results of the Universities HR Benchmarking Program; Sharing relevant workforce planning strategy success stories; Exploring case studies in workforce planning from within and outside of the sector; Learning about best practice in workforce management; and, Providing valuable networking opportunities for HR practitioners. This year, the Benchmarking Program marks its fifth anniversary and the annual conference will be held in October in Melbourne. Comparisons Comparisons are made to the Member results in each of these reports. These comparisons are made to the wider Sector or to predefined groups, depending on the context of the report. This group can be identified on the title page of the report as well as the header on each page of the report. The number of members contributing to the group or sector results for a particular measure can also be seen within the report. Page 5 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities The Report The report is divided into five sections: Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Summary of Results Section 3 Program Results Section 4 Detailed Data Tables Section 5 Guide to the Report Section 1 This section gives an introduction to the report and provides context for the user. Section 2 The Summary of Results provides a snapshot of the report. This includes tables with a summary of the results, as well as a summary of the key findings of the report. Section 3 The Program Results show the outcomes of the Program in a graphical format. Section 4 The Detailed Data Tables provides a simple view of the outcomes of the program, providing a year on year comparison for the majority of measures for the member compared to the wider population. This is complemented by including the sample size to give context to the results. Section 5 The final section provides additional information to assist the user in understanding and using the report. This includes a glossary of terms, key definitions, important considerations for the report, and details some of the changes from previous reports. Page 6 of 103
Section 2 Summary of Results The key findings from the report with a summary table of the results Page 7 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Benchmarking Program 2008 Key Sector Findings The following is a summary of the key findings from the results for the Benchmarking program, 2008. It provides an outline of the trends and patterns that have occurred in the survey results from all universities which participated in the program, based on data from the member Universities that submitted data for 2005 to 2007. It is important to note that the analysis performed on this group will be affected by the sample size. Due to the small size of the group, and a number of measures having limited contributions, identification of group trends is restricted. Please be aware of this when making use of this analysis. Comparisons to the Sector in this analysis relate to the Australian Sector. Points of Interest Decrease in Ratio of General to Academic FTE (Excluding Casuals) from 1.58 in 2005 to 1.44 in 2007. Including Casuals, this drop is from 1.41 in 2005 to 1.32 in 2007. Female participation increased in Academics from 40.3% in 2005 to 43.5% in 2007 A drop in Total Turnover rates from 20.8% in 2006 to 19.2% in 2007. Increase Voluntary Employee Initiated Turnover from 9.3% in 2005 to 10.8% in 2007. Academic Promotion Success Rate increased from 62.5% in 2006 to 68.6% in 2007 Doctoral Qualifications for Level C-E are higher than the sector while Level A and B are significantly lower than sector scores. Staffing Where the Australian Sector had increases in the Ratio of Division to Faculty Staff FTE (Excluding Casuals), the Regional group remained steady across the 3 year period (0.76 in 2005 to 0.75 in 2007), but did drop from the 2006 rate of 0.78. These rates still remain significantly higher than the sector rate of 0.53 in 2007. The Ratio of General to Academic (Excluding Casuals) results did follow the national trend with a decrease from 1.58 in 2006 to 1.44 in 2007. The Sector decreased from 1.37 in 2005 to 1.31 in 2007. The group ratio also drops when casual FTE is included with a decrease from 1.41 to 1.32. Centralised Staffing Ratios remained steady across the group with the biggest changes being in Student Administration (increase from 3.7% in 2005 to 4.2% in 2007) and Student Services (increase from 2.5% in 2005 to 2.9% in 2007). Finance (Sector 1.7%; Regional 2.8%), Information Technology (Sector 4.5%; Regional 5.7%) and Student Administration (Sector 2.9%; Regional 4.2%) stand out as being higher than the sector within the centralised Staffing Ratios 2007. Female Participation followed sector trends and increased from 54.1% in 2005 to 55.5% in 2007. Academic female participation increased by approximately 3% across each of the Academic classification levels. Turnover and Unscheduled Absence Total Turnover remained relatively steady across the 3 year period and is 19.2% in 2007. This remains higher than the sector average of 17.7%. Voluntary Employee Initiated Turnover increased from 9.3% in 2005 to 10.8% in 2007. Academic rates increased from 8.2% to 9.2% over the 3 years. General staff turnover rates increased more with HEW 1-5 rising from 10.4% in 2005 to 12.8% in 2007, and HEW 6-10 jumping from 9.4% in 2006 to 11.1% in the same period. Unscheduled Absence rates increased overall from 4.93 days per employee in 2005 to 5.62 days per employee in 2007, which is higher than the sector (4.72 days in 2007). General staff absence increased between 2005 and 2007 from 6.31 days to 7.44 days. Despite this increase, the Regional rate remains below the sector average of 7.51 days. Page 8 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Recruitment Overall, the Applicant Interest rate has increased across the 3 year period from 10.11 applications per position in 2005, to 11.14 in 2007. This compares well with the overall sector, which has an average applicant rate of 10.45. Both General Staff (11.29 in 2005 to 11.95 in 2007) and Academic Staff (7.60 in 2005 to 9.65 in 2007) saw an increase in applications, with both remaining above the sector comparisons (11.12 and 9.35 respectively). Recruitment Days to Start and to Offer both increased across the 3 year period. Days to Offer rose from 45.21 days overall to 55.76 days. This compares to the sector which dropped from 47.74 days to 41.47 days in the same period. Similar patterns occurred with Days to Start with Regional Universities rising from 65.83 days in 2005 to 71.34 in 2007, while the overall sector decreased from 62.01 to 57.93. Recruitment Source remained steady with 45.25% of recruits coming from internal sources in 2007. This is slightly higher than the sector with 41.2%. Academic Measures Doctoral Qualifications have remained below the sector average with 54.6% of Regional Academics having a Doctorate compared to 60.3% of the sector. Despite this, Academic C (71.2% compared to 69.4%), D (86.1% compared to 84.0%) and E (89.1% compared to 86.9%) have a higher rate than the sector. The Academic Promotion Rate, as well as Application for Promotion rate decreased while the Promotion Success Rate rose. Promotion Rates decreased across all classification levels from 2006 to 2007, with an overall drop from 5.1% to 4.4%, though this still compares well with the sector (4.5% in 2007). The Application for Promotion Rate is similar to the sector at 6.4% for the Regional Group compared to 6.5%. This is despite a drop from 7.6% in 2005. Success rates increased across the 3 year period from 66.8% in 2005 to 68.6% in 2007. The difference in Academic Promotion Rate between the genders in 2007 is not great. For all Academics, the difference is 0.5% with males (4.6%) being slightly higher than females (4.1%). This pattern has continued across the 3 year period. Males show a higher Application for Promotion rate in 2007, with 7.0% compared to 5.7% for females. Both the male and female rate have dropped across the 3 year period. Promotion applications to Academic Level B are higher for females (4.5%) than males (3.7%). This follows a decrease for the male Level B rate from 10.6% in 2005 to 3.7% in 2007. There is a greater Academic Promotion Success Rate for females overall (71.7% compared to 66.4% for males), which is shown across all levels apart from promotions to Level E. Level E promotion success for females has decreased from 58.3% in 2006 to 45.5% in 2007. This is lower than the male comparison of 55.8%. Occupational Health and Safety OH&S Incident Rate remained steady at 1.1% in 2007, which is a drop from 2005 from 1.2%. Average Time Lost, however, has increased from 15.17 days per incident in 2005, to 15.62 in 2006, up further to 17.00 in 2007 Financial Employment costs have decreased relative to revenue from 2005 (57.7%) to 2007 (53.5%), which is similar to the sector rate of 53.5%. Page 9 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Summary of Results Central Queensland Ratio of Division to Faculty Staff (Excluding Casuals) 0.93 1.14 Ratio of Division to Faculty Staff (including Casuals) 1.06 0.82 0.93 Ratio of General Staff to Academic Staff (Excluding Casuals) 1.85 1.82 1.61 Ratio of General Staff to Academic Staff (Including Casuals) 1.96 1.66 1.23 Ratio of Faculty General Staff to Faculty Academic (Excluding Casuals) 0.54 0.68 0.38 Ratio of Faculty General Staff to Faculty Academic (Including Casuals) 0.58 0.58 0.30 Average Time Lost 16.25 36.08 16.11 Centralised Staffing Ratio - Finance 5.69 % 5.35 % 5.16 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - Information Technology 6.07 % 5.77 % 10.24 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - Student Administration 3.18 % 4.54 % 3.50 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - Student Services 1.98 % 2.18 % 2.23 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - Libraries 3.82 % 3.46 % 3.66 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - Buildings/Facilities 3.71 % 3.92 % 4.91 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - Learning and Research 2.32 % 1.66 % 1.90 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - Marketing/Communication Staff 1.53 % 1.15 % 1.73 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - HR Department Staff 1.87 % 1.76 % 2.15 % Centralised Staffing Ratio - Payroll Staff 0.81 % 0.62 % 0.56 % HR Function Staffing Ratio 3.71 % 2.91 % 3.10 % Employment Costs as a % of Revenue 34.49 % 43.32 % OH&S Incident Rate 0.98 % 1.09 % 0.88 % Ratio of Part Time FTE to Full Time FTE 0.10 Ratio of Fixed Term FTE to Ongoing FTE 0.40 Female Participation 58.08 % 57.67 % 56.56 % REG Average 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.70 0.69 0.69 1.58 1.55 1.44 1.41 1.37 1.32 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.43 15.17 15.62 17.00 2.81 % 2.88 % 2.78 % 5.28 % 5.07 % 5.65 % 3.66 % 3.55 % 4.16 % 2.53 % 2.80 % 2.93 % 4.34 % 4.10 % 4.12 % 3.83 % 3.92 % 3.91 % 2.04 % 1.98 % 2.32 % 2.14 % 1.75 % 1.94 % 1.69 % 1.68 % 1.82 % 0.35 % 0.36 % 0.33 % 2.27 % 2.24 % 2.35 % 57.65 % 52.99 % 53.53 % 1.15 % 1.12 % 1.13 % 0.14 0.35 54.07 % 54.52 % 55.50 % Page 10 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Summary of Results Total Turnover 15.64 % 24.67 % 23.95 % Voluntary Employee Initiated Turnover 8.39 % 13.38 % 11.59 % Voluntary Initiated Turnover 0.24 % 0.08 % 4.67 % Involuntary Initiated Turnover 0.41 % 0.33 % 0.58 % Fixed Term Contract Expiration 6.60 % 10.87 % 7.11 % Recruitment Rate 8.39 % 12.12 % 6.82 % Recruitment Source 56.31 % 58.62 % 70.00 % Applicant Interest 4.92 4.86 4.88 Recruitment Days to Offer 4.07 39.92 45.11 Recruitment Days to Start 5.34 20.72 80.83 Unscheduled Absence Taken per Employee 5.94 1.31 4.61 Doctoral Qualifications 41.02 % 35.09 % 39.94 % Academic Promotion Rate 5.29 % 5.21 % 2.95 % Applications for Promotion Rate 7.81 % 5.73 % 6.78 % Academic Promotions Success Rate 67.74 % 90.91 % 43.48 % Honorary/Visiting Academics 5.83 % 9.02 % 11.61 % 20.00 % 20.76 % 19.21 % 9.28 % 9.98 % 10.78 % 2.62 % 2.22 % 1.38 % 0.77 % 0.66 % 0.99 % 7.33 % 7.89 % 6.26 % 13.12 % 13.40 % 12.73 % 44.61 % 44.68 % 45.18 % 10.11 10.28 11.14 45.21 47.93 55.76 65.83 65.54 71.34 4.93 5.16 5.62 52.07 % 54.04 % 54.62 % 5.07 % 5.24 % 4.36 % 7.64 % 8.38 % 6.36 % 66.76 % 62.50 % 68.62 % 35.15 % 55.16 % 58.47 % Page 11 of 103
Section 3 Program Results The results of your compared with Regional Universities Page 12 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Ratio of Division to Faculty Staff (Excluding Casuals) Division Staff excluding Casuals (FTE) Faculty Staff excluding Casuals (FTE) The average ratio of Divisional Staff (FTE) to Faculty Staff (FTE), with casual staff excluded from the calculations. The inclusion or exclusion of casual employees incorporates the effect of casualisation of the workforce, which allows the organisation to view the actual work performed or the core workforce. Staffing ratios show the concentration of core business staff compared to support and corporate staff. Factors that affect this measure include centralisation of corporate and support functions, outsourcing of certain functions and service delivery differentiation. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Division - Total 1.40 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.00 DF Ex Cas 0.00 CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample DF Ex Cas 1.14 0.47 0.58 0.61 0.65 1.11 1.14 1.26 0.75 11 Page 13 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Ratio of Division to Faculty Staff (including Casuals) Division Staff including Casuals (FTE) Faculty Staff including Casuals (FTE) The average ratio of Divisional Staff (FTE) to Faculty Staff (FTE), with casual staff included in the calculations. The inclusion or exclusion of casual employees incorporates the effect of casualisation of the workforce, which allows the organisation to view the actual work performed or the core workforce. Staffing ratios show the concentration of core business staff compared to support and corporate staff. Factors that affect this measure include centralisation of corporate and support functions, outsourcing of certain functions and service delivery differentiation. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Division - Total 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.00 DF In Cas 0.00 CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample DF In Cas 0.93 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.62 0.93 1.03 1.08 0.69 9 Page 14 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Ratio of General Staff to Academic Staff (Excluding Casuals) General Staff excluding Casuals (FTE) Academic Staff excluding Casuals (FTE) The average ratio of General Staff (FTE) to Academic Staff (FTE), with casual staff excluded from the calculations. The inclusion or exclusion of casual employees incorporates the effect of casualisation of the workforce, which allows the organisation to view the actual work performed or the core workforce. Staffing ratios show the concentration of core business staff compared to support and corporate staff. Factors that affect this measure include centralisation of corporate and support functions, outsourcing of certain functions and service delivery differentiation. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: General Total 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.20 0.00 GA Ex Cas 0.00 CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample GA Ex Cas 1.61 1.04 1.19 1.37 1.59 1.80 1.86 2.01 1.44 12 Page 15 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Ratio of General Staff to Academic Staff (Including Casuals) General Staff including Casuals (FTE) Academic Staff including Casuals (FTE) The average ratio of General Staff (FTE) to Academic Staff (FTE), with casual staff included in the calculations. The inclusion or exclusion of casual employees incorporates the effect of casualisation of the workforce, which allows the organisation to view the actual work performed or the core workforce. Staffing ratios show the concentration of core business staff compared to support and corporate staff. Factors that affect this measure include centralisation of corporate and support functions, outsourcing of certain functions and service delivery differentiation. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: General Total 1.80 2.00 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 GE In Cas Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample GE In Cas 1.23 1.10 1.15 1.23 1.34 1.43 1.68 1.79 1.32 9 Page 16 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Ratio of Faculty General Staff to Faculty Academic (Excluding Casuals) DEFINITION Faculty General Staff excluding Casuals (FTE) Faculty Academic Staff excluding Casuals (FTE) The average ratio of Faculty General Staff (FTE) to Faculty Academic Staff (FTE), with casual staff excluded from the calculations. The inclusion or exclusion of casual employees incorporates the effect of casualisation of the workforce, which allows the organisation to view the actual work performed or the core workforce. Staffing ratios show the concentration of core business staff compared to support and corporate staff. Factors that affect this measure include centralisation of corporate and support functions, outsourcing of certain functions and service delivery differentiation. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Faculty - General 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.00 FGA Ex Cas 0.00 CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample FGA Ex Cas 0.38 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.58 0.61 0.79 0.49 11 Page 17 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Ratio of Faculty General Staff to Faculty Academic (Including Casuals) DEFINITION Faculty General Staff including Casuals (FTE) Faculty Academic Staff including Casuals (FTE) The average ratio of Faculty General Staff (FTE) to Faculty Academic Staff (FTE), with casual staff excluded from the calculations. The inclusion or inclusion of casual employees incorporates the effect of casualisation of the workforce, which allows the organisation to view the actual work performed or the core workforce. Staffing ratios show the concentration of core business staff compared to support and corporate staff. Factors that affect this measure include centralisation of corporate and support functions, outsourcing of certain functions and service delivery differentiation. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Faculty - General 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.00 FGA In Cas 0.00 CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample FGA In Cas 0.30 0.16 0.26 0.35 0.42 0.56 0.57 0.60 0.43 8 Page 18 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Average Time Lost Total number of working days lost Total number of lost time occurrences The Average Time Lost Rate measures the severity of OH&S incidents which occur in the university. A low result may indicate that OH&S incidents in the university are relatively minor. However the frequency of these occurrences should also be taken into consideration to gauge the overall health of the workplace A high result may indicate the university has experienced some major workplace incidents causing injury/disease/fatality. This may highlight the need to instigate more effective preventative and rehabilitative measures or revise current OH&S practices. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 80.00 40.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 ATL 0.00 CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample ATL 16.11 2.33 3.69 6.27 12.53 26.46 45.47 79.71 17.00 12 Page 19 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION OH&S Incident Rate Total number of lost time occurrences Employees (HEADCOUNT) The OH&S Incidence Rate measures the number of workplace health and safety related occurences per 100 employees. This measure should be viewed in conjunction with the Average Time Lost Rate to get a better picture of the overall safety of the university. A low rate may indicate that the university has effective workplace health and safety practices in place a high rate may indicate the university's OH&S function may be ineffective. This may also put upward pressure on worker's compensation premiums. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 3.5 % 1.8 % 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 1.6 % 1.4 % 1.2 % 1.0 % 1.5 % 0.8 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.6 % 0.4 % 0.2 % 0.0 % OHS 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample OHS 0.88 % 0.17 % 0.29 % 0.66 % 1.12 % 1.62 % 2.39 % 3.31 % 1.13 % 12 Page 20 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Finance Central Finance Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for centralised (non-faculty) finance and business Services functions. The Central Administration Ratio is the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Finance function as a percentage of total FTE. More often than not, this will represent FTE for a department or number of departments in a division. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 6.0 % 6.0 % 5.0 % 4.0 % 3.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 5.0 % 4.0 % 3.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.0 % CSR - Fin 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - Fin 5.16 % 1.46 % 1.56 % 2.03 % 2.34 % 3.62 % 5.21 % 5.63 % 2.78 % 10 Page 21 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Information Technology Central IT Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for centralised (non-faculty) computing operations providing services to areas across the organisation. The Central Administration Ratios are the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Information Technology function as a percentage of total FTE. More often than not, this will represent FTE for a department or number of departments in a division. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 12.0 % 12.0 % 10.0 % 8.0 % 6.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 10.0 % 8.0 % 6.0 % 4.0 % 4.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 0.0 % CSR - IT 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - IT 10.24 % 3.50 % 3.61 % 4.25 % 6.11 % 6.96 % 8.01 % 10.24 % 5.65 % 10 Page 22 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Student Administration Central Student Administration Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for centralised (non-faculty) student administration including student records, admissions, enrolments, examinations and fees. The Central Administration Ratio is the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Student Administration function as a percentage of total FTE. More often than not, this will represent FTE for a department or number of departments in a division. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 7.0 % 5.0 % 6.0 % 5.0 % 4.0 % 3.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 4.5 % 4.0 % 3.5 % 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.0 % CSR - Stud Ad 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - Stud Ad 3.50 % 2.45 % 3.13 % 3.63 % 4.18 % 4.40 % 5.74 % 6.43 % 4.16 % 10 Page 23 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Student Services Central Student Services Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for centralised (non-faculty) organisational units whose primary function involves the provision of services directed at the welfare of students. The Central Administration Ratios are the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Student Services function as a percentage of total FTE. More often than not, this will represent FTE for a department or number of departments in a division. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 9.0 % 3.5 % 8.0 % 7.0 % 6.0 % 5.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 4.0 % 1.5 % 3.0 % 2.0 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.0 % CSR - SS 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - SS 2.23 % 1.24 % 1.71 % 1.88 % 2.40 % 3.04 % 4.75 % 8.00 % 2.93 % 10 Page 24 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Libraries Central Libraries Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for all staff in central libraries and branch libraries under the control of the central library. Libraries under the control of an academic organisational unit are regarded as part of that academic organisational unit and hence are classified as academic activity. The Central Administration Ratio is the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Libraries function as a percentage of total FTE. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 6.0 % 5.0 % 5.0 % 4.0 % 3.0 % 2.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 4.5 % 4.0 % 3.5 % 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.0 % CSR - Lib 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - Lib 3.66 % 3.25 % 3.32 % 3.56 % 4.21 % 4.34 % 4.56 % 5.24 % 4.12 % 10 Page 25 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Buildings/Facilities Central Building/Faculties Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for centralised (non-faculty) organisational units undertaking the design, repair and maintenance of the plant, equipment and buildings of the institution and the maintenance of its grounds plus any cleaning services and security and caretaker services. The Central Administration Ratios are the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Buildings/Facilities function as a percentage of total FTE. More often than not, this will represent FTE for a department or number of departments in a division. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 7.0 % 6.0 % 6.0 % 5.0 % 4.0 % 3.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 5.0 % 4.0 % 3.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.0 % CSR - Build 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - Build 4.91 % 1.45 % 2.85 % 3.07 % 4.31 % 5.15 % 5.42 % 6.41 % 3.91 % 10 Page 26 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Learning and Research Central Learning and Research Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for centralised (non-faculty) operations which support the teaching and learning function (eg online teaching, curriculum development, pedagogical development, research training, research supervisor training). The Central Administration Ratio is the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Learning and Research function as a percentage of total FTE. More often than not, this will represent FTE for a department or number of departments in a division. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 3.5 % 3.0 % 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.0 % CSR - L&R 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - L&R 1.90 % 0.90 % 1.38 % 1.66 % 2.21 % 2.99 % 3.35 % 3.39 % 2.32 % 10 Page 27 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Marketing/Communication Staff Central marketing/communications Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for centralised (non-faculty) marketing, communications, public relations function. The Central Administration Ratios are the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Marketing/Communicationas function a percentage of total FTE. More often than not, this will represent FTE for a department or number of departments in a division. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 3.5 % 3.0 % 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.0 % CSR - Mark 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - Mark 1.73 % 1.39 % 1.41 % 1.41 % 1.73 % 2.19 % 2.77 % 3.41 % 1.94 % 9 Page 28 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - HR Department Staff Central Human Resources Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for centralised (non-faculty) administrative functions. The Central Administration Ratio is the number Centralised HR Department Staff (FTE) as a percentage of total FTE. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.0 % CSR - HR 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - HR 2.15 % 1.22 % 1.23 % 1.44 % 1.85 % 2.17 % 2.55 % 2.82 % 1.82 % 10 Page 29 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Centralised Staffing Ratio - Payroll Staff Central Payroll Function (Non-Faculty) FTE (including Casuals) Total FTE (including Casuals) This measures staffing ratios for the centralised (non-faculty) payroll function. The Central Administration Ratios are the number Staff (FTE) performing a Centralised Payroll Staff function as a percentage of total FTE. More often than not, this will represent FTE for a department or number of departments in a division. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of services provided, and level of centralisation/ decentralisation of the function. Any outsourcing or automation of centralised services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 0.8 % 0.9 % 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 0.8 % 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0 % CSR - Pay 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample CSR - Pay 0.56 % 0.18 % 0.20 % 0.21 % 0.34 % 0.53 % 0.76 % 0.78 % 0.33 % 10 Page 30 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION HR Function Staffing Ratio Human Resources function FTE Employees (HEADCOUNT) The HR Function Ratio is the number Staff (FTE) performing the HR FUNCTION as a percentage of total headcount. Total headcount is used as it is recognised that whether a staff member is employed part-time or full-time, it is likely that he/she would still require the same level of HR services. This ratio can vary depending on the level & complexity of HR services provided, level of centralisation/decentralisation of the HR function. Any outsourcing or automation of HR services and geographic spread of employees across campuses are among other considerations. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 4.0 % 4.0 % 3.5 % 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 3.5 % 3.0 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.0 % HR Func 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample HR Func 3.10 % 1.52 % 1.88 % 2.13 % 2.36 % 2.93 % 3.49 % 3.74 % 2.35 % 11 Page 31 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Employment Costs as a % of Revenue Total Employment Costs (inc on costs) Total Income This is the total cost of ongoing employment which includes remuneration, superannuation, payroll tax, and other employee benefits and on costs as a percentage of Total Revenue. If staff salaries require too high a percentage of expenditure from the budgets of academic organisational units, those units have less flexibility and less ability to meet other essential needs. Their capacity to reach their goals is severely constrained. Salaries expenditure as a percentage of academic unit income will generally be higher in faculties that do not require high expenditure on equipment and facilities. The indicators of health for academic organisational units are the proportion of salaries to total income and the trends in those proportions. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges Graph: Total 70.0 % 70.0 % 60.0 % 50.0 % 40.0 % Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - 60.0 % 50.0 % 40.0 % 30.0 % 30.0 % 20.0 % 20.0 % 10.0 % 10.0 % 0.0 % Empl Cost 0.0 % CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Empl Cost 43.32 % 43.32 % 47.26 % 50.76 % 54.10 % 56.82 % 58.19 % 60.24 % 53.53 % 11 Page 32 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Ratio of Fixed Term FTE to Ongoing FTE Total Fixed Term Staff FTE Total On Going Staff FTE The Ratio of Fixed Term to Full Time employees provides the organisation with a profile of the employment tenure within the workforce. This ratio gives an insight into aspects such as funding sources, flexibility and stability within the workforce. Fixed Term employment provides greater flexibility for the organisation allowing the organisation the flexibility to fill short term or project vacancies and respond to external funding. From an employee's perspective, the uncertain nature of the fixed term contract can create dissatisfaction and may lead to voluntary turnover or decreased performance. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 HEW 6-10 HEW 1-5 Division - Total Faculty - Total Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Academic Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - Graph: Total Graph: Total (M) Graph: Total (F) 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 Page 33 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Ratio of Fixed Term FTE to Ongoing FTE CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total 0.40 0.16 0.18 0.24 0.33 0.44 0.59 0.80 0.35 11 Total (M) 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.33 0.40 0.55 0.66 0.33 11 Total (F) 0.42 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.32 0.47 0.55 1.00 0.36 11 Faculty - Total 0.51 0.12 0.18 0.29 0.42 0.51 0.61 0.73 0.42 10 Faculty - Total (M) 0.48 0.13 0.16 0.29 0.40 0.49 0.54 0.60 0.38 10 Faculty - Total (F) 0.54 0.11 0.19 0.30 0.42 0.54 0.64 0.97 0.45 10 Division - Total 0.32 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.26 0.33 0.43 0.20 10 Division - Total (M) 0.28 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.27 0.31 0.48 0.22 10 Division - Total (F) 0.34 0.10 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.26 0.35 0.41 0.19 10 Academic Total 0.42 0.19 0.19 0.33 0.42 0.68 0.76 1.49 0.48 11 Academic Total (M) 0.40 0.16 0.19 0.30 0.40 0.54 0.61 1.19 0.41 11 Academic Total (F) 0.43 0.20 0.22 0.37 0.44 0.87 1.00 1.91 0.58 11 Academic A 1.75 0.62 0.68 1.50 1.90 4.51 5.27 6.43 2.24 11 Academic A (M) 2.29 0.54 1.04 2.12 2.69 5.47 9.03 9.79 3.02 11 Academic A (F) 1.35 0.44 0.68 1.03 1.35 2.85 4.38 5.95 1.79 11 Academic B 0.39 0.12 0.14 0.30 0.41 0.87 1.01 1.26 0.49 11 Academic B (M) 0.43 0.07 0.13 0.30 0.43 0.78 0.86 1.18 0.46 11 Academic B (F) 0.36 0.11 0.19 0.29 0.38 0.91 1.18 1.31 0.52 11 Academic C 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.20 0.24 0.54 0.62 0.22 11 Academic C (M) 0.18 0.03 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.51 0.17 11 Academic C (F) 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.24 0.33 0.90 1.00 0.31 11 Academic D 0.61 0.02 0.09 0.18 0.22 0.38 0.61 1.28 0.26 11 Academic D (M) 0.41 0.03 0.10 0.19 0.23 0.33 0.41 0.83 0.23 11 Academic D (F) 1.88 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.29 0.68 1.88 3.10 0.33 11 Academic E 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.22 0.44 0.54 3.01 0.24 11 Academic E (M) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.21 0.39 1.08 1.74 0.22 11 Academic E (F) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.41 0.80 1.00 0.32 11 General Total 0.33 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.26 0.33 0.41 0.82 0.25 11 General Total (M) 0.24 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.34 0.47 0.20 11 General Total (F) 0.38 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.26 0.37 0.45 1.00 0.28 11 HEW 1-5 0.48 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.28 0.43 0.49 0.89 0.28 11 HEW 1-5 (M) 0.42 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.25 0.38 0.44 0.59 0.24 11 HEW 1-5 (F) 0.51 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.29 0.45 0.51 1.00 0.29 11 HEW 6-10 0.19 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.19 0.28 0.34 0.70 0.22 11 HEW 6-10 (M) 0.14 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.26 0.27 0.38 0.17 11 HEW 6-10 (F) 0.24 0.08 0.09 0.17 0.24 0.31 0.39 1.00 0.25 11 Senior Staff 1.67 0.23 0.32 0.60 1.29 2.52 4.38 7.82 0.85 11 Senior Staff (M) 2.00 0.31 0.34 0.74 1.66 3.02 4.60 5.12 0.95 11 Senior Staff (F) 1.30 0.00 0.07 0.33 0.57 1.15 2.51 3.89 0.66 11 Page 34 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Ratio of Part Time FTE to Full Time FTE Total Part Time Staff FTE Total Full Time Staff FTE The Ratio of Part Time to Full Time employees provides the organisation with a profile of the employment status within the workforce. This ratio gives an insight into aspects such as work life balance and flexibility within the workforce. The delineation between classifications and gender can reflect issues surrounding equity and work life balance. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 HEW 6-10 HEW 1-5 Division - Total Faculty - Total Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Academic Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - Graph: Total Graph: Total (M) Graph: Total (F) 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 Page 35 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Ratio of Part Time FTE to Full Time FTE CQU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.14 11 Total (M) 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.06 11 Total (F) 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.32 0.21 11 Faculty - Total 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.24 0.14 10 Faculty - Total (M) 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.07 10 Faculty - Total (F) 0.19 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.24 0.26 0.35 0.22 10 Division - Total 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.14 10 Division - Total (M) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.04 10 Division - Total (F) 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.21 10 Academic Total 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.22 0.12 11 Academic Total (M) 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.07 11 Academic Total (F) 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.21 0.24 0.33 0.19 11 Academic A 0.32 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.43 0.66 0.78 0.28 11 Academic A (M) 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.23 0.54 1.01 0.15 11 Academic A (F) 0.99 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.38 0.63 0.91 0.99 0.41 11 Academic B 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.26 0.13 11 Academic B (M) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.07 11 Academic B (F) 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.21 0.23 0.34 0.19 11 Academic C 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.07 11 Academic C (M) 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.05 11 Academic C (F) 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.09 11 Academic D 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.19 0.05 11 Academic D (M) 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.04 11 Academic D (F) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.20 0.08 11 Academic E 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.23 0.24 0.06 11 Academic E (M) 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.27 0.38 0.07 11 Academic E (F) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.43 0.05 11 General Total 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.16 11 General Total (M) 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.05 11 General Total (F) 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.33 0.23 11 HEW 1-5 0.18 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.31 0.21 11 HEW 1-5 (M) 0.21 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.20 0.21 0.08 11 HEW 1-5 (F) 0.17 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.30 0.34 0.42 0.27 11 HEW 6-10 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.10 11 HEW 6-10 (M) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.04 11 HEW 6-10 (F) 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.17 11 Senior Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 11 Senior Staff (M) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 11 Senior Staff (F) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.03 11 Page 36 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Female Participation While this is useful across the organisation as a whole, it is more pertinent when the focus is on a smaller workforce group, such as faculties or senior staff, where there may be a specific focus on Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges equal opportunity for women in the workplace. 80 % Academic Total (F) Academic A (F) Academic B (F) Academic C (F) Academic D (F) Total Female FTE Total Staff FTE The female participation rate demonstrates the gender balance within the workforce, which can be used to measure the effectiveness of equity activities within the organisation. Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - Academic E (F) Faculty - Total (F) Total (F) Division - Total (F) HEW 1-5 (F) HEW 6-10 (F) Senior Staff (F) Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total 56.56 % 48.32 % 50.83 % 54.09 % 56.49 % 58.46 % 60.22 % 62.08 % 55.50 % 12 Faculty - Total 49.71 % 43.92 % 45.72 % 47.35 % 50.82 % 55.91 % 56.55 % 59.15 % 51.28 % 11 Division - Total 38.57 % 38.57 % 58.53 % 59.50 % 59.90 % 60.87 % 64.97 % 67.20 % 59.08 % 11 Academic Total 44.20 % 37.59 % 38.32 % 38.87 % 42.61 % 48.79 % 50.31 % 51.10 % 43.45 % 12 Academic A 48.78 % 48.41 % 48.88 % 51.19 % 53.94 % 60.74 % 67.90 % 69.10 % 55.73 % 12 Academic B 56.83 % 43.54 % 44.63 % 45.64 % 54.00 % 57.38 % 60.01 % 61.97 % 50.40 % 12 Academic C 35.79 % 27.20 % 29.27 % 32.42 % 35.86 % 39.50 % 41.86 % 46.74 % 37.83 % 12 Academic D (F) D 24.83 % 12.04 % 22.47 % 24.78 % 26.84 % 33.72 % 39.03 % 46.93 % 27.88 % 12 Academic E 15.04 % 11.03 % 15.17 % 16.58 % 19.33 % 29.84 % 32.44 % 33.42 % 22.77 % 12 General Total 65.71 % 60.07 % 60.93 % 64.46 % 65.66 % 66.52 % 68.68 % 69.98 % 65.30 % 12 HEW 1-5 72.31 % 68.81 % 69.30 % 70.41 % 72.71 % 75.74 % 76.59 % 77.89 % 73.18 % 12 HEW 6-10 58.31 % 47.03 % 49.27 % 51.37 % 52.90 % 59.59 % 63.63 % 63.97 % 55.29 % 12 Senior Staff 41.07 % 20.62 % 23.04 % 26.12 % 33.04 % 38.81 % 43.39 % 44.24 % 32.90 % 12 Page 37 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities Female Participation Graph: Total (F) 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Graph: Faculty - Total (F) 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Graph: Division - Total (F) 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Graph: Academic Total (F) 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Graph: General Total (F) 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Graph: Senior Staff (F) 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Page 38 of 103
Central Queensland compared with Regional Universities DEFINITION Total Turnover Total Separations (HEADCOUNT) Employees (HEADCOUNT) Total Turnover Rate is the percentage of ongoing and fixed-term staff who ceased working for the, resulting from voluntary and involuntary separations and fixed term contract expiration. The purpose of this index is to measure total staff turnover. This is an important index to monitor as it demonstrates the total loss of skills from the due to turnover. High turnover represents a loss of skills and a significant cost to the. However, low turnover may have additional affects that may impact on the dynamics of the organisation's workforce, such as resistance to change, reduced introduction of new ideas, and limiting career paths for key staff. Graph: Results versus Percentile Ranges 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Senior Staff HEW 6-10 HEW 1-5 Division - Total Faculty - Total Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Academic Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - Graph: Total 25.0 % 20.0 % 15.0 % 10.0 % 5.0 % Graph: Total (M) 25.0 % 20.0 % 15.0 % 10.0 % 5.0 % Graph: Total (F) 30.0 % 25.0 % 20.0 % 15.0 % 10.0 % 5.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % Page 39 of 103