Universities HR Benchmarking Program

Transcription

1 Benchmarking Program 2013 HR Performance Indicators for Edith Cowan Compared with Australian Universities For the period

2 COPYRIGHT: Copyright Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) Program Team: Stuart Andrews, Henry Wong and Daniel Gullo Published by Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) ABN Head Office, Level 2, 303 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 AUSTRALIA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AHEIA would like to acknowledge the Benchmarking Program was founded by QUT in CONFIDENTIALITY & USE OF DATA: We acknowledge the confidential nature of the data and information provided to us and confirm that we appreciate and protect this. Under no circumstances will AHEIA disclose any specific information or data pertaining to your university to any third party without written consent or permission from your university. 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 Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA): HENRY WONG HR Benchmarking and Events Manager Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) Level 2, 303 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 CLIENT SERVICES & SUPPORT: Program & Administrative Enquiries: Henry Wong Technical Support & Enquiries: Daniel Gullo Or us on: hrbenchmarking@aheia.edu.au Page 2 of 97

3 Section 1 - Introduction Table of Contents Introduction Page 4 Section 2 - Summary of Results Summary of Results Section 3 Program Results Page 6 Workforce Profile Indigenous Staffing Distribution of Classifications Female Participation HR Function Staffing Ratio Turnover Voluntary Employee Initiated Turnover Voluntary Initiated Turnover Involuntary Initiated Turnover Fixed Term Contract Expiration Voluntary Employee Initiated Turnover > 12 months 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 Employment Costs as a % of Revenue WH&S Page 13 Page 26 Page 89 Page 30 Page 32 Page 33 Page 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 66 Page 72 Page 78 Page 79 Section 4 Detailed Data Tables Detailed Data Tables Page 82 Section 5 Definitions List of Measures Page 97 Page 3 of 97

4 Section 1 Introduction Understanding the program and report presentation Page 4 of 97

5 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Introduction Benchmarking Program 2013 The Benchmarking Program was established in 2004 as a result of collaboration between a number of Australian Universities who wanted to be able to compare and contrast human resource data with like institutions. The program has expanded substantially and in 2013 consists of 39 members from Australia and New Zealand. 38 members contributed data for this year s report. Members collate and submit information about their university, which is analysed and reported across a number of measures, drawing comparisons to the university sector as a whole or a defined sub-group of universities. This report contains results across 42 measures which fall into one of the following categories: Staff Profiles Academic Workforce Profile Turnover Absence Recruitment Efficiency and Effectiveness Age Length of Service Occupational Health and Safety Employment Costs The ability to draw comparisons relevant to each member s university can offer great insight into individual and sector-wide practices. Importantly, this data can add significant value through informing human resources-related strategy and policy decisions. Comparisons Each member will, as part of its membership, receive three reports as well as the Report Companion which provides useful information on the report process and how to read the reports. The first provides comparative results against the sector as a whole (ie all contributing members). The second provides comparative results against a specific sub-group of the sector (eg Go8, ATN and IRU). Members were asked to nominate the sub-group with which they wish to be compared when registering for the program. The third provides comprehensive data relating to age and length of service for employees. Each of these reports is identified clearly on the title page of the report, as well as the header of each page of the report. The number of members contributing to the results for a particular measure (the sample size) is also shown within the relevant report. Additional reports, comprising either a customised sub-group of universities or an existing formalised sector grouping, may be purchased. For further information, including costs, please contact Henry Wong, by phoning or ing <hrbenchmarking@aheia.edu.au>. Group Reports As part of subscription, members are entitled to a sector/program report and one other group report. The available group reports are based on the formal and informal groupings - Australian Technology Network (ATN), the Group of 8 (Go8), Innovative Research, New Generation, Regional Universities and New Zealand Universities. Members may also request that additional groups be created that are a logical comparison to benchmark against. New groups are required to have at least 5 or more members. Report Time Frames Data is collected for the previous 5 calendar years. Where cumulative data is required, the period used is 1 January to 31 December for each calendar year, with 31 March for that particular year being used for the snapshot data. Page 5 of 97

6 Section 2 Summary of Results The summary table of the results Page 6 of 97

7 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Summary of Results Please refer to Section 3 - Program Results - for definitions of each measure. Workforce Profile Workforce Profile: by Employment Kind (Excluding Casuals) Edith Cowan General Total % % % % G % % % % % Academic Total %.57 % % % A % % % % % Senior Staff/Mgt % % 4.64 % S 3.45 % % 3.65 % 3.55 % Workforce Profile: by Employment Kind (Including Casuals) Edith Cowan General Total % % % % % G % % % % % Academic Total % % % % A % % % % Senior Staff/Mgt 4.46 % 4.44 % 3.95 % 3.86 % 3.97 % S 2.99 % 3.17 % 3.06 % 3.01 % 3.05 % Workforce Profile: by Faculty and Division (Excluding Casuals) Edith Cowan Division - Total % % % % % D %.07 % %.04 %.01 % Faculty - Total % % % % % F % % % % % Workforce Profile: by Faculty and Division (Including Casuals) Edith Cowan Division - Total % % % % % Division % Total % % % % Faculty - Total % % % % % Faculty Total % % % % % Workforce Profile of Faculty: by Employment Kind (Excluding Casual) Edith Cowan Faculty - General % %.83 %.64 %.92 % Faculty.81 - General % %.78 % % % Faculty - Academic % % % 64. % % Faculty Academic % % % % % Workforce Profile of Faculty: by Employment Kind (Including Casual) Edith Cowan Faculty - General.39 % % % % % Faculty.86 - General %.57 %.31 %.16 %.85 % Faculty - Academic % % % % % Faculty Academic % % % % % Page 7 of 97

8 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Summary of Results Workforce Profile: by Contract Type Edith Cowan Workforce Profile: Composition by Contract Type (Fixed Term) % % % % % W %.8.81 %. %.8 Workforce Profile: Composition by Contract Type (Ongoing) % % % % % W % % % Workforce Profile: by Employment Status Edith Cowan Workforce Profile: Composition by Employment Status (Full Time) % % % % W % % % % % Workforce Profile: Composition by Employment Status (Part Time) % % % % W % % % Other Workforce Profile Measures Edith Cowan Female Participation % % % % F % % % % HR Function Staffing Ratio % 1.67 % 1.62 % H 1.84 % 1.82 % 1.88 % 1.89 % 1.94 % Indigenous Staffing (Aust) 1.21 % 1.06 % 1.16 % 1.42 % 1.34 % In % % 1.05 % Turnover Edith Cowan Fixed Term Contract Expiration 9.89 % 8.17 % 8.26 % 7.49 % 3.11 % Fixed 6.25 Term % Contract 6.62 % Expiration 6.44 % 6.29 % 6.41 % Involuntary Initiated Turnover 0.24 % % 0.71 % 0.54 % Involuntary 0.49 % 0.67 % Initiated 0.64 Turnover % 0.59 % 0.66 % Total Turnover % % % % % Total Turnover % % % % % Voluntary Employee Initiated Turnover % 7.16 % % Voluntary % Employee 8.13 Initiated % 9.22 Turnover % 8.79 % 7.95 % Voluntary Initiated Turnover 0.78 % 1.73 % % 1.23 % Voluntary 0.93 % 1.50 Initiated % 1.31 Turnover % 0.72 % 0.96 % Voluntary Employee Initiated Turnover < 12 months % 2.09 % Voluntary 1.97 % Employee 1.45 Initiated % 2.43 Turnover % 2.02 < 12 % months 2.34 % Absence Edith Cowan Unscheduled Absence Taken per Employee Unscheduled 5.15 Absence 5.31Taken 5.61 per Employee Page 8 of 97

9 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Summary of Results Recruitment Edith Cowan Applicant Interest A Recruitment Days to Offer R Recruitment Days to Start R Recruitment Rate % 8.56 % % 4.92 % % R % % % Recruitment Source % % % R % % % % Academic Edith Cowan Academic Promotion Rate 7.06 % 5.87 % 3.16 % 3.66 % 3.32 % A 4.89 % 4.24 % 4.52 % 4.49 % 4.41 % Academic Promotions Success Rate % % % % % A 69. % % % % % Applications for Promotion Rate % 9.67 % 4.65 % 6.32 % 5.77 % A 7.05 % 6.02 % 6.37 % 6.37 % 6.28 % Doctoral Qualifications % % % % D % % % Honorary/Visiting Academics % % % % % H % % % % % Age Profile Edith Cowan Age Profile < 25 Years of Age 4.51 % 4.29 % 3.75 % 4. % 3.49 % Age Profile 3.21 % < Years % of Age 2.84 % 2.58 % 2.37 % Age Profile Years of Age 7.75 % % 9.19 % 8.8 Age Profile 8.69 % Years % of 9.13 Age% 9.05 % 8.95 % Age Profile Years of Age % % % % Age Profile % Years % of Age% % % Age Profile - 39 Years of Age % % % % % Age Profile % Years % of Age% % % Age Profile Years of Age % % % % % Age Profile % Years % of Age% % % Age Profile Years of Age % % % % % Age Profile % Years % of Age% % % Age Profile Years of Age % % % 15.3 Age Profile % Years % of Age% % 13.9 Age Profile Years of Age % % 12. % % 12.5 Age Profile % Years % of Age% % % Age Profile Years of Age 6.37 % 7.06 % 7.73 % 7.05 % 6.78 % Age Profile Years % of 6.85 Age % 7.12 % 6.92 % Age Profile 65 + Years of Age 1.13 % 0.94 % 1.58 % 1.52 % 2.18 % Age Profile Years % of Age 2.02 % 2.28 % 2.55 % Median Age of New Recruits Median naage of New na Recruitsna na na Median Age of Separated Staff Median naage of Separated na Staff na na na Median Age of Current Staff Median naage of Current na Staffna na na Page 9 of 97

10 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Summary of Results Length of Service Profile Edith Cowan LOS Profile < % % % % % L % % % % 13.1 LOS Profile % % % % % L % % % % % LOS Profile % % % % % L % % % % % LOS Profile % % % % % L % % % % % LOS Profile % % % % % L % % % % LOS Profile % % % 6.77 % 6.37 % L 9.72 % 9.17 % 8.48 % LOS Profile % 5.47 % % 5.57 % L 5.07 % 5. % 5.62 % 5.99 % 5.9 LOS Profile % 2.84 % % 1.75 % L 2.17 % % 2.26 % 2.47 % LOS Profile % 2.09 % 0.06 % % L 2.43 % 2.29 % 2.08 % 2.04 % 1.99 % Median LOS - Current Staff M na na na na na Median LOS - Separating Staff M na na na na na Employment Cost Edith Cowan Employment Costs as a % of Revenue % % % % % Employment % Costs as % a % of Revenue % % % WH&S Edith Cowan Average Time Lost Average Time Lost WH&S Compensation Costs as a percentage of Employment Costs 0.19 % 0.19 % % 0.11 % WH&S 0.33 Compensation % 0.37 % Costs 0.32 as a % percentage 0.29 % of Employme 0.29 % WH&S Incident Rate 0.42 % 0.22 % 0.28 % 0.16 % 0.27 % WH&S 0.77 Incident % Rate 0.79 % 0.76 % 0.65 % 0.57 % Page 10 of 97

11 Section 3 Program Results The results of your compared with Australian Universities Page 11 of 97

12 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile: Composition by Employment Kind (Excluding Casuals) DEFINITION Total Academic/General/Senior Staff FTE Total Staff FTE This measure compares the proportions of Academic and General staff (FTE) of the total staff FTE excluding casual staff. Results indicate the concentration of support and corporate staff compared to core-business staff (academics). This measure gives an indication of the level of support (corporate and other service delivery) provided to enable the academic work of the university. Factors that may affect this measure include outsourcing of certain functions, service delivery differentiation and multi-campus operations. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range ECU results by Classification for % 4.64 % 1 Academic Total General Total Senior Staff/Mgt Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile % General Total Academic Total Senior Staff/Mgt Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Academic Total % % % % % % % % Academic Total (M) 41. % 41. % % % % % % % % Academic Total (F) % % % %.31 %.69 % % % General Total % % % % % % % % General Total (M) % % % % % % % % % General Total (F) % % % % % % % % % Senior Staff/Mgt 4.64 % 1.47 % 2.09 % 2.79 % 3.81 % 4.17 % 4.83 % 9.66 % 3.55 % Senior Staff/Mgt (M) 7.95 % 2.33 % 3.43 % 4.05 % 5.54 % 6.33 % % 5.16 % Senior Staff/Mgt (F) 2.51 % 0.69 % 0.87 % 1.73 % 2.46 % 2.88 % 3.38 % 7.49 % 2.25 % General Total (T) Academic Total (T) Senior Staff/Mgt (T) 6 % 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 % Page 12 of 97

13 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile: Composition by Employment Kind (Including Casuals) DEFINITION Total Academic/General/Senior Staff FTE Total Staff FTE This measure compares the proportions of Academic and General staff (FTE) of the total staff FTE including casual staff. Results indicate the concentration of support and corporate staff compared to core-business staff (academics). This ratio gives an indication of the level of support (corporate and other service delivery) provided to enable the academic work of the university. Factors that may affect this measure include outsourcing of certain functions, service delivery differentiation and multi-campus operations. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range ECU results by Classification for % 3.97 % 1 Academic Total General Total Senior Staff/Mgt Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile % General Total Academic Total Senior Staff/Mgt Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Academic Total % % % % % % % % 33 Academic Total (M) % % % % % % % % 33 Academic Total (F) % % % %.86 % % % %.0 33 General Total % % % % % % % % 33 General Total (M) % % % % % % % % % 33 General Total (F) % % % % % % % % % 33 Senior Staff/Mgt 3.97 % 1.27 % 1.72 % 2.34 % 3.18 % 3.52 % 4.42 % 7.69 % 3.05 % 33 Senior Staff/Mgt (M) 6.94 % 1.99 % 3.06 % 3.55 % % 6. % 9.39 % 4.46 % 33 Senior Staff/Mgt (F) 2.12 % 0.56 % % 2.16 % 2. % 3.21 % 6.05 % 1.93 % 33 General Total (T) Academic Total (T) Senior Staff/Mgt (T) 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 % Page 13 of 97

14 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile: Composition by Faculty and Division (Excluding Casuals) DEFINITION Total Faculty/Division Staff FTE Total Staff FTE This measure compares the proportions of Faculty and Division staff (FTE) of the total staff FTE excluding casual staff. This result indicates the proportion of centralised divisional support staff compared to staff appointed to deliver core business and decentralised support services within faculties. Factors that may impact on the result include centralisation of corporate support, outsourcing and service delivery differentiation. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range ECU results by Classification for % Faculty - Total Division - Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - Division - Total Faculty - Total % Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Faculty - Total % % % % % % % % 33 Faculty - Total (M) % % % % % % % 68. % 33 Faculty - Total (F) % % % % % % % % 33 Division - Total % % % % % % %.01 % 33 Division - Total (M) % % %.02 % % % % % 33 Division - Total (F) % % % % % % % % 33 Faculty - Total (T) Division - Total (T) Page 14 of 97

15 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile: Composition by Faculty and Division (Including Casuals) DEFINITION Total Faculty/Division Staff FTE Total Staff FTE This measure compares the proportions of Faculty and Division staff (FTE) of the total staff FTE including casual staff. This result indicates the proportion of centralised divisional support staff compared to staff appointed to deliver core business and decentralised support services within faculties. Factors that may impact on the result include centralisation of corporate support, outsourcing and service delivery differentiation. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range ECU results by Classification for % Faculty - Total Division - Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - Division - Total % Faculty - Total Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Faculty - Total % % % % % % % % 31 Faculty - Total (M) % % % % % % % 31 Faculty - Total (F) % % % % % % % % 31 Division - Total % % % % % 49. % % 31 Division - Total (M) % % % % % % 31 Division - Total (F) % % 31. %.63 % % % %.34 % 31 Faculty - Total (T) Division - Total (T) Page 15 of 97

16 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile of Faculty: Composition by Employment Kind (Excluding Casuals) DEFINITION Faculty General/Academic Staff FTE Total Faculty Staff FTE This measure compares the proportions of Academic and General staff (FTE) of the total Faculty staff FTE excluding casual staff. Results indicate the proportion of support/general staff appointed within the Faculties to provide support services to Academic staff. This support service is defined as decentralised service support as opposed to support services delivered by Divisional staff which is defined a centralised services. The result may be impacted by factors such as an increased need for service support as a result of the increase in research activities within faculties, realignment of staffing structures and specific university targets, centralisation of corporate and support functions, outsourcing of certain functions and service delivery differentiation. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range ECU results by Classification for % Faculty - General Faculty - Academic Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - Faculty - General % Faculty - Academic Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Faculty - Academic % 52. % % % % % % 75. % % 33 Faculty - Academic (M) % % % % % % % % % 33 Faculty - Academic (F) % % % % % % % 33 Faculty - General.92 % % % % % % % % % 33 Faculty - General (M) % % % % % % % % % 33 Faculty - General (F) % % % % % % % 33 Faculty - General (T) Faculty - Academic (T) Page 16 of 97

17 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile of Faculty: Composition by Employment Kind (Including Casuals) DEFINITION Faculty General/Academic Staff FTE Total Faculty Staff FTE This measure compares the proportions of Academic and General staff (FTE) of the total Faculty staff FTE including casual staff. Results indicate the proportion of support/general staff appointed within the Faculties to provide support services to Academic staff. This support service is defined as decentralised service support as opposed to support services delivered by Divisional staff which is defined a centralised services. The result may be impacted by factors such as an increased need for service support as a result of the increase in research activities within faculties, realignment of staffing structures and specific university targets, centralisation of corporate and support functions, outsourcing of certain functions and service delivery differentiation. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range Faculty - General Faculty - Academic Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - ECU results by Classification for % % Faculty - General Faculty - Academic Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Faculty - Academic % % % % % % % % 30 Faculty - Academic (M) % % % % % % % % 30 Faculty - Academic (F) % % % % % % % % 30 Faculty - General % % % % %.85 % 30 Faculty - General (M) % % % % % % % % 30 Faculty - General (F) % % % % % % % % 30 Faculty - General (T) Faculty - Academic (T) Page 17 of 97

18 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities DEFINITION Workforce Profile: Composition by Contract Type (Fixed Term) Number of Fixed Term Staff (FTE) Total Staff Count This measure describes the proportion of total staff (FTE) who are employed on a fixed term basis. The circumstances for engaging employees on a fixed term may include specific budget allocation for a particular project, additional assistance required to meet peak workloads, or replacing permanent employees who are absent from their substantive position. The rate of fixed term appointments can reflect the need for a flexible work environment allowing the to meet certain business requirements. A high percentage of fixed term appointments may be reflective of a flexible workforce or an increase in project work or a need for specific expertise for a defined period. A high result should be considered within the context of the universities business objectives and longer term workforce strategies. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range HEW 1-5 General Total Division - Total Total Faculty - Total Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Academic Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - HEW 6 and Above Senior Staff/Mgt Total (T) Total (M) Total (F) 45.0% 40.0%.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 45.0% 40.0%.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 45.0% 40.0%.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Page 18 of 97

19 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile: Composition by Contract Type (Fixed Term) ECU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total % 19.1 % 26.1 % 34.1 % % 52.2 %.8 % Total (M) 25.7 % 16.7 % 20.2 % 26.9 % 33.5 % 38.9 % 44.7 % 51.9 %.8 % Total (F) 32.8 % 14.3 % 18.2 % 25.3 % 32.7 % 40.1 % 46.4 % 52.6 %.8 % Faculty - Total 14.4 % 6.4 % 18.1 % 25.2 %.4 % 44.4 % 52.8 % 62.8 % Faculty - Total (M) 8.1 % % 24.5 % % 51.1 % 62.2 % 39.7 % 33 Faculty - Total (F) 18.6 % 7.5 % % 37.7 % 47.8 % % 42.2 % 33 Division - Total 23.1 % 10.9 % 13.9 % 18.4 % 23.1 % 29.6 % 31.4 % 40.5 % 23.6 % 33 Division - Total (M) 25.8 % % 17.7 % 25.8 % 32.7 %.2 % 45.9 % 24.9 % 33 Division - Total (F) 21.5 % 11.3 % 13.1 % 19.1 % % 32.7 % 39.5 % 22.8 % 33 Academic Total 29.3 % 15.3 % 22.5 % 29.6 %.8 % 44.6 % 53.9 % 67.3 % 43.1 % Academic Total (M) % 21.1 % 26.1 % % 51.8 % % Academic Total (F) 33.4 % % 32.3 % % 70.7 % 45.4 % Academic A 56.6 % 44.6 % 56.2 % 65.9 % 82.5 % % 98.2 % 86.7 % Academic A (M) 59.2 % 45.3 % 57.5 % 68.3 % 85.9 % 94.7 % 97.9 % % Academic A (F) 54.4 % 43.7 % 51.5 % 65.4 % % 95.5 % 98.3 % 84.9 % Academic B 37.8 % 16.3 % 24.1 % % 53.2 % 64.7 % 71.2 % 45.9 % Academic B (M) 33.3 % 16.1 % 23.3 % 30.5 % 42.4 % 52.8 % % 46.5 % Academic B (F) % 21.4 % % 51.5 % 65.4 % 74.9 % 45.4 % Academic C 12.9 % 3.2 % 10.8 % 12.7 % 19.4 % 30.3 % 38.2 % 49.7 % 25.6 % Academic C (M) 11.8 % 3.2 % 9.8 % 12.5 % 19.9 % 27.2 % 37.9 % 51.6 % 25.8 % Academic C (F) 14.3 % 3.2 % 9.8 % 11.9 % % 39.9 % 49.7 % 25.3 % Academic D 17.1 % 7.2 % 10.5 % 12.3 % 17.2 % % 41.3 % 22.2 % Academic D (M) 17.1 % 6.3 % 10.4 % 12.3 % 20.5 % % 40.1 % 22.7 % Academic D (F) % 10.7 % 18.3 % 27.5 % 31.5 % 43.2 % 21.4 % Academic E 24.7 % 4.7 % 11.3 % 15.8 % 24.9 % 34.4 % 41.9 % 68.1 % 26.9 % Academic E (M) 14.1 % 5.6 % 10.4 % 14.2 % 24.1 %.8 % 42.8 % % Academic E (F) % 14.9 % 21.8 %.2 % 45.6 % 90.7 % 26.3 % General Total 28.6 % 9.9 % 12.1 % 20.4 % 26.8 %.5 % 38.9 % 43.1 % 29.4 % General Total (M) 22.1 % 9.1 % 11.4 % % 31.5 %.5 % % General Total (F) 31.6 % 10.4 % 12.3 % 18.7 % % % 30.5 % HEW % % 20.9 % 28.2 % % 46.7 % 31.1 % HEW 1-5 (M) 27.3 % 10.6 % 13.6 % 18.3 % 27.7 % 34.6 % 38.3 % 47.3 % 28.9 % HEW 1-5 (F) 33.9 % % % 37.7 % 45.1 % 48.6 % 31.9 % HEW 6 and Above 24.6 % 9.1 % 10.6 % 20.3 % 25.2 % 32.7 % % EW 6 and Above (M) 18.8 % 7.8 % 9.8 % % % 44.6 % 26.5 % HEW 6 and Above (F) 28.5 % 8.9 % 10.9 % 19.2 % 25.7 % 34.6 % 39.7 % 48.2 % 29.4 % Senior Staff/Mgt 55.4 % 23.3 % 29.7 % 42.7 % 59.9 % 85.4 % 94.8 % % Senior Staff/Mgt (M) 52.8 % 21.9 % 33.5 % 49.4 % 63.8 % 87.5 % 93.7 % % Senior Staff/Mgt (F) 60.6 % 17.9 % 26.4 % 33.4 % 56.4 % 85.8 % 99.5 % % Page 19 of 97

20 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities DEFINITION Workforce Profile: Composition by Contract Type (Ongoing) Number of Ongoing Staff (FTE) Total Number of Staff (FTE) This measure describes the proportion of total staff (FTE) who are employed on an ongoing basis. Ongoing appointments ensure a consistency of staff that provides stability for both the employee and the organisation. A high result is generally considered in a positive light and shows a more stable workforce. Any result should be considered against the university's current and future workforce strategies including recruitment and retention strategies. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range HEW 1-5 General Total Division - Total Total Faculty - Total Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Academic Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - HEW 6 and Above Senior Staff/Mgt Total (T) Total (M) Total (F) 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Page 20 of 97

21 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile: Composition by Contract Type (Ongoing) ECU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total 69.9 % 47.8 % 54.8 % % 84.7 % 64.2 % Total (M) 74.1 % 48.1 % 55.3 % 61.1 % 66.6 % 73.1 % 79.9 % 83.3 % 64.1 % Total (F) 67.2 % 47.5 % 53.6 % 59.9 % 67.3 % 74.8 % 81.8 % 85.7 % 64.2 % Faculty - Total 45.6 % 23.4 % 45.2 % 54.4 % 62.6 % 70.6 % 78.7 % % 33 Faculty - Total (M) 71.6 % 13.3 % 47.8 % 55.3 % % 80.2 % 83.4 % Faculty - Total (F) 28.2 % 28.2 % % 61.7 % 71.5 % 78.7 % 84.9 % 55.1 % 33 Division - Total 72.4 % 59.5 % 68.6 % 70.4 % 76.7 % 81.7 % 86.1 % 89.1 % 76.5 % 33 Division - Total (M) 72.8 % 54.2 % 63.8 % 67.3 % 74.3 % 83.1 % 86.1 % % 76.3 % 33 Division - Total (F) 72.1 % 60.5 % 67.3 % 72.1 % 76.8 % 80.9 % 86.9 % 88.7 % 76.7 % 33 Academic Total 71.5 % 32.7 % 46.1 % 55.4 % 63.2 % 70.5 % 77.5 % 84.7 % 57. Academic Total (M) 75.8 % % 58.2 % % 78.9 % 85.9 % 58.8 % Academic Total (F) 67.4 % 29.3 % 41.8 % 53.1 % % 76.9 % % Academic A 43.4 % 1.9 % 4.6 % % 34.1 % 43.8 % 55.3 % 13.3 % Academic A (M) 40.8 % % 6.1 % 14.2 % 31.7 % 42.5 % 54.8 % 11.4 % Academic A (F) 45.6 % 1.7 % 4.5 % 11.5 % % 48.5 % 56.1 % 15.1 % Academic B 62.2 % 28.8 %.3 % 46.7 % 60.2 % 67.1 % 75.9 % 83.7 % 54.1 % Academic B (M) 66.7 % 28.6 % % 57.6 % 69.5 % 76.8 % 83.9 % 53.5 % Academic B (F) % 34.6 % 48.5 % 59.6 % % 85.6 % 54.6 % Academic C 87.1 % 50.3 % 61.8 % 69.7 % 80.6 % 87.3 % 89.3 % 96.8 % 74.4 % Academic C (M) 88.3 % 48.4 % 62.1 % 72.8 % 80.1 % 87.6 % 90.2 % 96.8 % 74.2 % Academic C (F) 85.7 % 50.3 % 60.1 % 67.7 % 81.1 % 88.1 % 90.2 % 96.8 % 74.7 % Academic D 86.8 % 58.8 % 67.1 % % 87.7 % 89.5 % 92.9 % 77.8 % Academic D (M) 86.4 % 59.9 % 64.8 % % 87.7 % 89.6 % 93.7 % 77.4 % Academic D (F) 87.3 % 56.8 % 68.5 % 72.5 % 81.7 % 89.3 % 91.8 % % Academic E 82.2 % 31.9 % 58.1 % 65.6 % 75.1 % 84.2 % 88.7 % 95.4 % 73.1 % Academic E (M) 91.2 % % 64.2 % 75.9 % 86.2 % 90.5 % 94.4 % 73. Academic E (F) % % 78.2 % 85.1 % 94.5 % % General Total 71.4 % 56.9 % 61.1 % 64.5 % 73.2 % 79.6 % 87.9 % 90.1 % 70.6 % General Total (M) 77.6 % % 68.5 % 73.4 % 81.1 % 88.6 % % General Total (F) 68.4 % 52.9 % % % 87.8 % 89.6 % 69.5 % HEW % 53.3 % 57.5 % % 79.1 % 86.8 % 89.1 % 68.9 % HEW 1-5 (M) 72.7 % 52.7 % 61.7 % 65.4 % 72.4 % 81.7 % 86.4 % 89.7 % 71.1 % HEW 1-5 (F) 66.1 % 51.4 % 54.9 % 62.3 % 71.9 % % % HEW 6 and Above 75.2 % % 67.3 % 74.8 % 79.7 % 89.4 % 90.9 % 71.8 % EW 6 and Above (M) 80.7 % 55.4 % 63.4 % 67.1 % 74.7 % 80.8 % 90.2 % 92.3 % 73.5 % HEW 6 and Above (F) 71.5 % 51.8 % 60.3 % 65.4 % 74.3 % 80.8 % 89.2 % 91.1 % 70.6 % Senior Staff/Mgt 39.5 % % 14.6 % 39.4 % 54.8 % 70.3 % 76.7 % 45.5 % Senior Staff/Mgt (M) 43.4 % % 12.5 %.2 % 50.2 % 66.5 % 78.1 % 44. Senior Staff/Mgt (F) 31.5 % % 14.2 % 43.6 % 66.6 % 73.6 % 82.1 % 48.3 % Page 21 of 97

22 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities DEFINITION Workforce Profile: Composition by Employment Status (Full Time) Number of Full Time Staff (FTE) Total Staff (FTE) Percentage of staff appointed to work the maximum hours per week as determined in the Workplace Agreement. The levels of full time and part time employment reflect a number of issues including family friendly work environment and flexible work practices beneficial to both the employer and the employee. High levels of part time employees however may lead to issues such as concerns around job security and retention. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range HEW 1-5 General Total Division - Total Total Faculty - Total Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Academic Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - HEW 6 and Above Senior Staff/Mgt Total (T) Total (M) Total (F) 90.0% 89.0% 88.0% 87.0% 86.0% 85.0% 84.0% 83.0% 82.0% 95.0% 94.5% 94.0% 93.5% 93.0% 92.5% 92.0% 91.5% 91.0% 85.0% 84.0% 83.0% 82.0% 81.0% 80.0% 79.0% 78.0% 77.0% 76.0% Page 22 of 97

23 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile: Composition by Employment Status (Full Time) ECU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total 82.7 % 79.4 % 82.5 % 84.1 % 86.9 % 88.6 % 89.3 % 93.5 % 86.2 % Total (M) % 91.3 % 92.3 % 93.4 % 94.3 % 94.8 % 95.9 % 93.3 % Total (F) 76.7 % 71.5 % 75.7 % 77.4 % 81.8 % 83.9 % 85.3 % 92.4 % 80.5 % Faculty - Total 81.6 % 22.5 % % 86.9 % 88.6 % 89.4 % 90.4 % Faculty - Total (M) 91.2 % 16.7 % 89.6 % 90.9 % 92.5 % 93.9 % 94.4 % 95.8 % 87.5 % 33 Faculty - Total (F) 75.1 % 26.8 % 70.4 % 75.9 % 82.8 % 84.5 % 85.3 % 88.1 % Division - Total 83.6 % 81.6 % 84.3 % 85.1 % 87.3 % 88.7 % % 33 Division - Total (M) 91.7 % 91.7 % 92.9 % 94.3 % % 97.9 % % % 33 Division - Total (F) 78.6 % 68.6 % 77.6 % 78.9 % 81.2 % % 80.9 % 33 Academic Total 87.7 % 80.8 % 83.4 % 86.8 % 89.4 % 90.9 % 91.5 % % Academic Total (M) % 89.8 % 91.2 % 92.7 % 94.2 % % 92.4 % Academic Total (F) 81.7 % 73.2 % 74.4 % % 87.5 % 88.4 % % Academic A 81.2 % 45.9 % 71.2 % 79.1 % 81.2 % 85.7 % 88.7 % 94.5 % 82.9 % Academic A (M) 94.4 % % 86.7 % % % 90.7 % Academic A (F) 69.9 % 47.7 % 62.5 % 68.8 % 72.9 % 81.6 % % Academic B 87.3 % 76.9 % 81.5 % % 90.6 % 91.5 % 95.3 % 86.1 % Academic B (M) 95.2 % 85.9 % 88.8 % 91.3 % 93.4 % 94.6 % 95.9 % 96.9 % 92.6 % Academic B (F) 81.6 % 65.6 % 72.9 % 76.7 % % 88.9 % 94.2 % 80.1 % Academic C 88.4 % 79.9 % 86.4 % 89.4 % 92.6 % 94.1 % 94.3 % 97.1 % 90.5 % Academic C (M) 92.5 % 86.4 % 91.7 % 92.4 % 94.7 % 95.9 % 97.4 % % Academic C (F) 83.2 % 69.5 % 80.2 % 85.4 % 89.7 % 91.5 % 92.5 % 93.2 % 86.2 % Academic D 93.2 % 55.8 % 87.2 % 90.7 % 93.3 % 95.5 % 97.2 % % Academic D (M) 97.9 % 57.4 % 89.1 % 92.7 % 94.5 % 96.3 % 97.6 % 98.5 % 93. Academic D (F) 87.3 % % 87.2 % 90.5 % 95.9 % 97.6 % % Academic E % 86.7 % % 94.1 % 95.6 % 96.8 % 91.6 % Academic E (M) 88.5 % % 88.3 % 91.7 % 94.6 % 96.5 % 97.9 % 91.5 % Academic E (F) % 84.8 % 89.4 % 92.6 % 94.6 % 97.8 % % General Total 79.8 % 77.3 % 79.8 % 82.3 % 84.9 % 86.7 % 87.5 % 93.5 % 84.3 % General Total (M) 90.9 % 90.2 % % 93.7 % 95.1 % 95.5 % 98.5 % 93.9 % General Total (F) 74.6 % % 77.4 % 79.6 % 82.3 % 83.9 % % HEW % 70.1 % % 80.3 % 83.7 % 85.4 % 90.6 % 80. HEW 1-5 (M) 86.5 % 85.2 % 86.8 % 88.8 % 90.9 % 91.9 % % 90.7 % HEW 1-5 (F) 71.1 % 64.1 % 69.1 % 73.9 % 76.4 % 80.7 % 82.3 % 89.9 % 75.9 % HEW 6 and Above 85.1 % 81.8 % 83.6 % % 89.3 % 90.7 % 96.5 % 87.3 % EW 6 and Above (M) 93.8 % 91.9 % 93.2 % 94.1 % 95.5 % 96.5 % 97.6 % % 95.4 % HEW 6 and Above (F) 79.3 % 74.7 % % 82.6 % 84.6 % 86.7 % 95.4 % 81.8 % Senior Staff/Mgt 85.4 % 85.4 % 92.5 % 95.6 % 97.4 % 98.4 % 99.2 % Senior Staff/Mgt (M) 88.6 % % 95.6 % 97.8 % 98.9 % % Senior Staff/Mgt (F) 78.7 % 78.7 % 91.4 % 94.7 % 97.9 % % Page 23 of 97

24 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities DEFINITION Workforce Profile: Composition by Employment Status (Part Time) Number of Part Time Staff (FTE) Total Staff (FTE) Percentage of staff appointed to work less than the maximum hours per week as determined in the Workplace Agreement. The levels of full time and part time employment reflect a number of issues including family friendly work environment and flexible work practices beneficial to both the employer and the employee. High levels of part time employees however may lead to issues such as concerns around job security and retention. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range HEW 1-5 General Total Division - Total Total Faculty - Total Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Academic Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - HEW 6 and Above Senior Staff/Mgt Total (T) Total (M) Total (F) 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Page 24 of 97

25 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Workforce Profile: Composition by Employment Status (Part Time) ECU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total 17.3 % 6.5 % 10.7 % 11.5 % 13.1 % 15.9 % 17.5 % 20.6 % 13.8 % Total (M) % 5.2 % 5.7 % 6.6 % 7.7 % 8.7 % 9.5 % 6.7 % Total (F) 23.3 % 7.6 % 14.7 % 16.1 % 18.3 % 22.6 % 24.3 % 28.5 % 19.6 % Faculty - Total 10.2 % 7.3 % 10.2 % 11.2 % 11.8 % 15.1 % 17.9 % 22.7 % 13.5 % 33 Faculty - Total (M) 3.3 % 1.6 % % % 9.9 % 11.3 % 7.1 % 33 Faculty - Total (F) 14.8 % 11.5 % 14.1 % 15.2 % 16.6 % 21.1 % 25.5 % 30.3 % 19.2 % 33 Division - Total 9.9 % 7.7 % 10.3 % 11.6 % 13.7 % 15.1 % 18.1 % % 33 Division - Total (M) 6.9 % 1.6 % 3.5 % 4.1 % % 8.2 % 22.4 % Division - Total (F) 11.8 % 11.3 % 14.3 % % 21.3 % 23.3 % 32.8 % 19.3 % 33 Academic Total % 9.1 % 10.7 % 13.3 % 16.6 % 19.2 % 12.1 % Academic Total (M) 6.7 % 3.9 % % 7.3 % 8.8 % 10.2 % 11.3 % 7.6 % Academic Total (F) 19.1 % % 12.5 % 15.3 % 19.2 % 25.6 % 26.8 % 17.9 % Academic A 18.8 % 5.5 % 11.3 % 14.4 % 18.9 % 20.9 % 28.8 % 54.1 % 17.1 % Academic A (M) 5.6 % 4.4 % % % 15.3 % % Academic A (F) 30.1 % % 27.1 % 31.2 % 37.5 % 52.3 % 24.4 % Academic B 12.7 % 4.7 % 8.5 % 9.4 % 12.2 % 17.1 % 18.4 % 23.2 % 13.9 % Academic B (M) 4.8 % 3.1 % 4.2 % 5.5 % 6.6 % 8.6 % 11.2 % 14.1 % 7.4 % Academic B (F) 18.4 % 5.8 % 11.1 % 13.5 % % 27.2 % 34.4 % 19.9 % Academic C 11.6 % 2.9 % 5.7 % 5.9 % 7.4 % 10.6 % 13.6 % 20.1 % 9.5 % Academic C (M) 7.5 % % 4.1 % 5.3 % 7.6 % 8.3 % 13.7 % 6.3 % Academic C (F) 16.8 % 6.8 % 7.5 % 8.6 % 10.3 % 14.6 % 19.9 % 30.6 % 13.8 % Academic D 10.7 % % 4.5 % % 12.9 % 44.2 % 8.7 % Academic D (M) 5.6 % 1.5 % 2.7 % 4.1 % 5.6 % 7.3 % 10.9 % 42.6 % 7.1 % Academic D (F) % 4.2 % 9.5 % 13.4 % 17.3 % % Academic E 17.8 % 3.2 % 4.4 % 5.9 % 8.7 % 11.1 % % 8.5 % Academic E (M) 16.7 % 2.1 % 3.5 % 5.4 % 8.4 % % % Academic E (F) % 5.4 % 7.4 % 11.3 % 16.7 % % General Total 20.2 % 6.5 % 12.5 % 13.3 % 15.1 % 17.7 % 20.2 % 22.7 % 15.7 % General Total (M) 9.1 % 1.9 % 4.5 % 4.9 % 6.3 % 7.1 % % 6.1 % General Total (F) 25.4 % % 17.7 % 20.4 % 22.7 % 26.2 % % HEW % 7.3 % 14.6 % 16.3 % 19.8 % 22.1 % % 20. HEW 1-5 (M) 13.5 % 2.1 % 5.5 % 8.1 % 9.1 % 11.2 % 13.2 % 14.8 % 9.2 % HEW 1-5 (F) 28.9 % 8.5 % 17.8 % 19.4 % 23.7 % 26.1 % 30.9 %.9 % 24.1 % HEW 6 and Above 14.9 % 3.6 % 9.3 % 10.7 % 12.2 % % 18.2 % 12.7 % EW 6 and Above (M) 6.2 % 0.8 % 2.4 % 3.5 % 4.5 % 5.9 % 6.8 % 8.2 % 4.7 % HEW 6 and Above (F) 20.7 % 4.6 % 13.3 % 15.5 % 17.4 % 19.9 % % 18.2 % Senior Staff/Mgt 9.4 % % 1.6 % 2.6 % 4.4 % % 3.6 % Senior Staff/Mgt (M) 7.5 % % 2.2 % 4.3 % 7.9 % % Senior Staff/Mgt (F) 13.4 % % 5.3 % 8.2 % 14.6 % 4.4 % Page 25 of 97

26 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities DEFINITION Indigenous Staffing (Aust) Indigenous Staffing (Aust) Total Staff (Headcount) This measures the proportion of the staff who identify as an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person. This result will be dependant on the success of initiatives such as a university Indigenous employment strategy and they will be reliant on response rates of staff identification. This measure may be used to compare the representation of Indigenous people in the university workforce with the percentage representation of the Indigenous people in the community and to assist the university in determining the need for strategies to improve its representation through attraction and retention strategies. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range 3 25 % 2 15 % 1 5 % HEW 1-5 General Total Division - Total Total Faculty - Total Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Academic Total Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - HEW 6 and Above Senior Staff/Mgt Total (T) Total (M) Total (F) 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% Page 26 of 97

27 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities Indigenous Staffing (Aust) ECU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total 1.3 % % 0.7 % 1.1 % 1.5 % 2.7 % 11.2 % 1.1 % Total (M) 0.4 % % 0.5 % 0.7 % 1.1 % 1.8 % 8.4 % 0.8 % Total (F) 1.9 % % 0.9 % 1.2 % 1.9 % 3.1 % 12.9 % 1.3 % Faculty - Total 1.3 % 0.3 % 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.7 % 1.3 % 2.1 % 3.5 % 0.8 % 32 Faculty - Total (M) 0.5 % % 0.3 % 0.5 % 0.9 % 1.2 % 2.2 % 0.5 % 32 Faculty - Total (F) 1.7 % 0.2 % 0.4 % 0.6 % % 2.9 % 5.5 % 1.1 % 32 Division - Total 0.6 % 0.1 % 0.4 % 0.6 % 1.2 % 2.1 % 2.7 % 5.7 % 1.3 % 32 Division - Total (M) 0.3 % % 0.5 % 1.2 % 1.9 % 2.6 % 5.9 % 1.2 % 32 Division - Total (F) 0.8 % % 0.8 % 1.3 % 2.2 % 2.8 % 5.5 % 1.4 % 32 Academic Total 0.7 % % 0.4 % 0.9 % 1.4 % % 0.8 % Academic Total (M) 0.4 % % 0.2 % 0.5 % 0.8 % 1.5 % 3.9 % 0.5 % Academic Total (F) % 0.7 % 1.1 % % 11.2 % 1.2 % Academic A % 2.1 % 5.6 % 26.5 % Academic A (M) % 1.7 % % 0.7 % 34 Academic A (F) % 2.5 % 6.4 %.8 % 1.3 % 34 Academic B 1.1 % % 0.5 % % 2.3 % 6.8 % 1.1 % 34 Academic B (M) % 0.9 % 1.6 % 2.3 % 6.4 % 0.9 % 34 Academic B (F) 1.8 % % 1.2 % 1.8 % % 34 Academic C 0.5 % % 0.7 % 1.1 % 1.6 % 4.7 % 0.6 % 34 Academic C (M) % % 0.3 % 34 Academic C (F) % % Academic D % 1.1 % 2.2 % 5.9 % 0.7 % 34 Academic D (M) % 4.8 % 0.4 % 34 Academic D (F) % 2.7 % % 1.3 % 34 Academic E % 0.8 % 2.1 % 3.2 % 0.5 % 34 Academic E (M) % 4.1 % 0.2 % 34 Academic E (F) % 5.9 % 11.1 % 1.3 % 34 General Total 1.7 % % 0.8 % % 3.1 % 14.4 % 1.2 % General Total (M) 0.6 % % 0.6 % 0.9 % 1.4 % 2.6 % 14.6 % 1.1 % General Total (F) 2.2 % % 0.9 % 1.2 % 1.9 % 3.3 % 14.4 % 1.3 % HEW % 0.6 % 1.1 % 1.5 % % 23.3 % 1.6 % 34 HEW 1-5 (M) 0.7 % % 0.7 % 1.3 % 2.3 % % 1.5 % 34 HEW 1-5 (F) 2.4 % 0.2 % 0.7 % 0.9 % 1.5 % 2.3 % 3.6 % 23.2 % 1.7 % 34 HEW 6 and Above 1.3 % % 0.6 % 0.8 % 1.3 % 2.3 % 6.2 % 0.9 % 34 EW 6 and Above (M) 0.5 % % 0.7 % 1.1 % 2.5 % 4.2 % 0.9 % 34 HEW 6 and Above (F) 1.8 % % 0.6 % 0.9 % 1.5 % 2.3 % Senior Staff/Mgt 1.3 % % 1.1 % 1.9 % 2.5 % 6.3 % 0.8 % 33 Senior Staff/Mgt (M) % 2.8 % 8.7 % 0.8 % 33 Senior Staff/Mgt (F) 3.9 % % % Page 27 of 97

28 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities DEFINITION Distribution of Classifications (FTE) Total Staff FTE of Classification Total Staff FTE of Classification Group This measure provides the distribution of classifications as a proportion of the classification group in terms of FTE excluding casuals. The proportions indicate the relative number of staff at a particular classification point. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range Academic E Academic D Academic C Academic B Academic A Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Academic A 9.13 % 2.78 % 7.85 % % % % % % % Academic B % % % % % % % % Academic C % % % % % % %.29 % % Academic D 9.31 % 6.58 % 9.02 % % % % % % % Academic E 5.28 % 5.28 % 7.51 % 8.69 % % % % % % Page 28 of 97

29 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities DEFINITION Distribution of Classifications (FTE) Total Staff FTE of Classification Total Staff FTE of Classification Group This measure provides the distribution of classifications as a proportion of the classification group in terms of FTE excluding casuals. The proportions indicate the relative number of staff at a particular classification point. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range 3 25 % 2 15 % 1 5 % HEW 9 HEW 8 HEW 7 HEW 6 HEW 5 HEW 4 HEW 3 HEW 2 HEW 10+ HEW 1 Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - HEW 1-5 HEW 6 and Above ECU Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample HEW 1 0. % % 0.44 % 1.08 % 2.97 % 0.39 % HEW % 0.78 % 1.42 % 2.55 % 5.02 % 1.03 % HEW % % 2.99 % % 7.76 % % HEW % 5.48 % 7.66 % % % % % % HEW % % % % % % % % HEW % % % % % % % HEW % 12. % % % % % % 16.6 HEW % 4.21 % 8.15 % 9.74 % % % % % % HEW % 1.48 % % 5.33 % 7.72 % 8.91 % % 6.22 % HEW % 1.84 % 3.07 % 5.03 % 6. % % 3.63 % HEW % % %.01 % % % % % 41.2 HEW 6 and Above 48. % % % % % % % 58.8 Page 29 of 97

30 Edith Cowan compared with Australian Universities DEFINITION Female Participation Total Female FTE Total Staff FTE Percentage of female staff relative to the overall university population. 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. While this is useful across the organisation as a whole, it is more pertinent when the focus is on smaller workforce groups, such as faculties or senior staff, where there may be a specific focus on equal opportunity for women in the workplace. Though not collected within the program, there is also benefit in analysing this measure within different work units, such as specific faculties and divisions. ECU results versus Australian Universities 2012 Quartiles and Range HEW 1-5 (F) Division - Total (F) Total (F) Faculty - Total (F) Academic E (F) Academic D (F) Academic C (F) Academic B (F) Academic A (F) Academic Total (F) Top Quartile Third Quartile Second Quartile First Quartile - HEW 6 and Above (F) Senior Staff/Mgt (F) Min 10th 90th Max Avg Sample Total % % % % % % % % % Faculty - Total % % % % % % % % % 33 Division - Total % % % % % % % % 33 Academic Total % % % 41. % 44. % % % % % Academic A % % % % % % % % Academic B 58. % % % % % % % % % Academic C % % % % % % % Academic D (F) D % % %.41 % % % % % Academic E % % 18. % % % % % % General Total % % % % % % % 64.8 HEW % % % % % HEW 6 and Above % % % % % % % % % Senior Staff/Mgt % % % % % % % % Page 30 of 97