mloyment Reward sions Consultations Events Research Briefing Organisational Change Wal Sickness absence in Law a higher education yee

Transcription

1 mloyment Reward sions Consultations Events Research Briefing Organisational Change Wal Sickness absence in Law a higher education yee Engagement Briefings Pensions England Data No eland Knowledge Transfer Employee Relations Wellb esearch Health and Safety ions Equality Employment Social Media Clinical Acad

2 First published in January 2014 by Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) Registered and operational address: Universities and Colleges Employers Association Woburn House 20 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9HU Tel: Fax: Web: UCEA 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 or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. 1

3 Sickness absence in higher education 2012/13 A UCEA Report 2

4 Foreword We are pleased to present this second UCEA report on sickness absence in higher education. The report is based on information provided by UCEA member institutions and is designed to assist them in benchmarking sickness absence levels within the sector. The initial stimulus for the survey came from requests from within the sector and it was developed after extensive consultation which included a series of focus groups, a pilot survey and advice from a specially constituted steering group. 80 HEIs participated in the survey this year and we would like to thank all participating institutions for their support. We are confident that as the survey becomes more established greater numbers will join which will further improve the quality of the data. We are aware that there are differences in definitions and reporting metrics operating within the sector and that consequently some HEIs may not have found the survey questionnaire straightforward to complete. We hope, however, that over time more HEIs will move to reporting sickness absence using common definitions and that as a result we will be able to provide more accurate and useful data. Given the difficulties experienced by some HEIs in using the categories for reasons for absence, as used in the survey, the UCEA Health and Safety Committee has agreed to review these categories, in consultation with the sector, in time for the next survey. If you have any queries about the survey, please do not hesitate to contact the UCEA research team on or at research@ucea.ac.uk Helen Fairfoul Chief Executive 3

5 Contents 1. Executive summary 5 2. Introduction 6 3. Methodology 6 4. Average days lost per employee to sickness absence 7 5. Average percentage working days lost per employee to sickness absence 9 6. Average length of absence period Percentage of sickness absence which is long term Medical Schools Reasons for absence Methods used by HEIs to manage sickness absence Work-related sickness absence Cost of sickness absence Reporting of sickness absence 19 4

6 Executive summary There were 80 respondents (48 per cent of UCEA members), with a good spread of responses from pre-92s, post-92s and colleges/university colleges. Compared to the wider economy, recorded levels of sickness absence within the sector are low but levels of long-term absence appear to be high. This may be explained in part by under-reporting of absence: 80 per cent of HEIs believe that academic sickness absence is under-reported. On average, 5.5 days were lost due to sickness absence per employee in the sector in 2012/13. This is quite low when compared to the results of other surveys beyond HE, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) survey which shows a level of 7.6 days per employee in its 2013 survey and the latest XpertHR survey with a figure of 6.6 days. The average percentage of working time lost within the sector is also quite low at 2.4 per cent, which compares with a figure of 3.3 per cent for all employees in the CIPD survey and 2.9 per cent from XpertHR. The percentage of sickness absence within the sector which is categorised as long-term (over 20 consecutive working days) is high in comparison with other sectors. Under-reporting of absence occurs primarily for short term absence. Longer-term absence appears to be well recorded, which is leading to a disproportionately high level of reported long-term absence. There are significant differences in absence levels between staff groups. For example, the average absence level of manual staff is over four times that of academic staff. However, some of this disparity may be due to underreporting of short-term academic staff absence. The cause of sickness absence is not known for over a fifth of all absences; either because the reason was not captured at the institution level at the point of reporting, or because the reason given did not fit into any of the categories used in this survey. The UCEA Health and Safety Committee will therefore review this question and categories for next year s survey. The main cause of recorded long-term sickness absence is stress which also was responsible for the most working days lost overall (whether long-term or not). The main cause of short-term sickness absence is overwhelmingly cold/cough/flu. In terms of trend data, the results are very similar to those reported last year. The rates for average days lost, average percentage working days lost and length of absence are all marginally lower this year than last, whereas the percentage of sickness absence which is long-term is marginally higher. Most HEIs do not monitor the cost of sickness absence. Also most are not aware of the proportion of sickness absence that is work-related. The CIPD and XpertHR surveys show that this is also the case in the wider economy. HEIs consider the most effective approach for managing long-term sickness absence to be occupational health referral and the most effective method for managing short-term absence is involvement of line managers. 5

7 1. Introduction This is the second annual UCEA sickness absence benchmarking report for the higher education sector. The survey reports on sickness absence data and absence management practices for the 2012/13 academic year. The focus of the survey is on recording working time lost to the employer due to sickness absence (as opposed to the frequency of employee sickness). The survey also seeks to identify the causes of absence and HEIs absence management practices. The aim is to provide robust benchmarking data for HEIs on an annual basis. We are aware that there are differences in definitions and reporting metrics operating within the sector. We hope that over time more HEIs will move to reporting sickness absence using common definitions and that as a result we will be able to provide more accurate and useful data. 2. Methodology The initial stimulus for the survey came from within the sector. One of the areas under discussion within the UCEA Health and Safety Committee had been the quality of information regarding sickness absence available to institutions for benchmarking purposes. In order to gain a better understanding of this, UCEA conducted a survey relating to sickness absence reporting during August and September of One of the questions asked was whether HEIs would like UCEA to conduct a benchmarking survey on sickness absence on behalf of its members - the overwhelming response was positive. Accordingly, UCEA developed a sickness absence survey for the sector. Following an extensive consultation with members, including focus groups, we sought to design a survey that worked as well as possible for the sector, whilst providing accurate benchmark data. Copies of the survey questionnaire and the definitions used in the survey can be found on the UCEA website: As stated above, the focus of the survey is on recording working time lost to the employer due to sickness absence (as opposed to the frequency of employee sickness). We therefore decided to stipulate that data for part-time staff should be submitted on the same basis as for full-time staff, i.e. only to record working time lost to sickness absence. To do this requires individual respondents to be able to utilise the working pattern of their part-time staff and we are aware that this is not possible for some HEIs. We therefore decided to let these HEIs submit data for full-time staff only. In this year s survey approximately three quarters (59 out of 80) of HEIs submitted data for both full and part-time staff. Interestingly, absence rates for those who returned data on full and part-time staff was slightly higher than for those who returned data on full-time staff only (average days lost per employee was 5.6 compared to 5.1 and average percentage working days lost was 2.5 against 2.2). The size bands used in the report are based on institutional staff numbers (headcount) as this was felt to be the most appropriate measure for a sickness absence survey. Geographical breakdowns are analysed using Scotland, Wales, London and the South and then the rest of England (the sample for Northern Ireland was too small). In future surveys we hope, if the sample size increases, to be able to break down the sample of English HEIs into the nine English regions. 6

8 Responding HEIs Due to a small sample size and some incomplete returns it was not possible to conduct separate analysis for colleges/university colleges this year. These institutions have therefore been added to the post-92 universities category. Analysis by sector group includes data for the 1994 Group as it was still in existence at the time the survey questionnaire was distributed. Table 1: Respondents by type of institution Type of HEI Number of Respondents College/university college 5 Post-92 university 38 Pre-92 university 37 Table 2: Respondents by region Region Number of Respondents London and the South 22 Rest of England 42 Scotland 10 Wales 5 Northern Ireland 1 Table 3: Respondents by sector group Sector group Number of Respondents University Alliance 14 GuildHE 7 Million + 11 Russell Group Group 6 Table 4: Respondents by number of staff Number of staff Number of Respondents Average days lost per employee to sickness absence The average number of days lost to sickness absence within the sector is 5.5 at the mean and 5.6 at the median - this is slightly lower than last year s results of 5.7 and 5.8 respectively. This is quite low when compared to the results of other surveys such as that undertaken by the CIPD 1 which shows a level of 7.6 days for all employees in its 2013 survey and XpertHR 2 which shows a figure of 6.6 days (Figure 1). This is markedly low in comparison to the public sector, with which HE has broadly comparable conditions of service; the public sector showed an absence level of 8.7 days in 2013 according to the CIPD and 7.6 days according to XpertHR. Some caution must be exercised when making comparisons as these surveys do not follow 1 Absence management annual survey report 2013, CIPD, October Absence rates and costs: 2013 XpertHR survey, XpertHR, June

9 the same methodology as the UCEA survey and in fact rely on respondents producing data using their own definitions. Figure 1: Average levels of sickness absence UCEA CIPD XpertHR Average days lost to sickness absence. Average % working time lost per employee to sickness absence. There is a clear difference in absence level by staff group with levels amongst manual staff being the highest by some distance and being over four times higher than that of the lowest recorded group, academic staff. There are also differences among the other three staff groups with the second lowest group, managerial staff having clearly lower levels than the third lowest group, professional/technical staff, which in turn are clearly lower than clerical staff, the second highest recorded group. These results are similar to last year although there is a clear fall in recorded absence for academic staff and an increase for clerical staff. Figure 2: Average days lost to sickness absence by staff group Manual staff Clerical staff Professional/technical staff Managerial staff / /13 Academic staff Average days lost per employee per year The low level of absence level for academic staff is partly due to under-reporting of short-term absences at institution level (see section 12) although the flexibility and autonomy over working patterns enjoyed by many academic staff may mean that 8

10 being sick might not mean abstaining from work, even if not present in the workplace. Academic staff may also be able to re-arrange work in a manner unavailable to other staff. There seems to be little regional variation in absence levels except that in London and the South the absence level is lower than in other areas of the UK. Other discernible patterns include the fact that absence levels are lower in Russell Group and 1994 Group HEIs, as well as in pre-92 universities in general and those in the largest size band (over 4,000 staff). Table 5: Average days lost per employee to sickness absence by institution type Days lost Institution type 2011/ /13 Post-92 universities and colleges Pre-92 university All staff average Table 6: Average days lost per employee to sickness absence by region Days lost Region 2011/ /13 London and the South Rest of England Scotland Wales All staff average Table 7: Average days lost per employee to sickness absence by sector group Days lost Group 2011/ /13 University Alliance GuildHE Million Russell Group Group All staff average Table 8: Average days lost per employee to sickness absence by size of HEI Days lost Number of staff 2011/ / All staff average Average percentage working time lost per employee to sickness absence The average percentage of time lost to sickness absence within the sector is 2.4 per cent at the mean and 2.5 per cent at the median this represents a slight fall from last year s rates of 2.6 and 2.5 days respectively. These results broadly reflect the average days lost per employee to sickness absence. The differences in absence levels by staff group are again clearly visible, with academic staff recording the lowest levels and manual staff the highest. The most noticeable differences from last 9

11 year are a drop in recorded absence rates for academic staff and a rise for clerical staff absences. Figure 3: Average percentage working time lost per employee to sickness absence by staff group Manual staff Clerical staff Professional/technical staff Managerial staff Academic staff Average percentage working time lost 2011/ /13 Absence levels are again lower at pre-92 universities, Russell Group and 1994 Group HEIs as well as those with the largest number of staff and those located in London and the South. Table 9: Average percentage working time lost per employee to sickness absence by institution type % working time Institution type 2011/ /13 Post-92 universities and colleges Pre-92 university All staff average Table 10: Average percentage working time lost per employee to sickness absence by region % working time Institution type 2011/ /13 London and the South Rest of England Scotland Wales All staff average Table 11: Average percentage working time lost per employee to sickness absence by sector group % working time Group 2011/ /13 University Alliance GuildHE Million Russell Group Group All staff average

12 Table 12: Average percentage working time lost per employee to sickness absence by size of HEI % working time Number of staff 2011/ / All staff average Average length of absence period The average length of absence period within the sector is 5.0 days at the mean and 4.8 days at the median. This represents a slight fall from last year s rates of 5.3 and 5.0 days respectively. Again there are clear differences between staff groups. Academic staff have the longest average length of absence, almost twice the length of managerial staff, professional/technical staff and clerical staff. Also manual staff have relatively long average periods of absence. The most pronounced difference from last year is the fall in average length of absence in the managerial staff grouping from 5.6 days to 4.8 days. Figure 4: Average length of absence period by staff group Academic staff Manual staff Managerial staff Clerical staff Professional/technical staff / / Days There is also a difference in the length of absence period by HEI type, with pre-92 universities showing the shortest periods and post-92 universities and colleges the longest. There also seems to be a regional dimension with average absence lengths being shorter in London and the South and longer in Wales and Scotland. Table 13: Average length of absence period by institution type Average length Institution type 2011/ /13 Post-92 universities and colleges Pre-92 university All staff average

13 Table 14: Average length of absence period by region Average length Region 2011/ /13 London & the South Rest of England Scotland Wales All staff average Table 15: Average length of absence period by sector group Average length Group 2011/ /13 University Alliance GuildHE Million Russell Group Group All staff average Table 16: Average length of absence period by size of HEI Number of staff Average length 2011/ / All staff average Percentage of sickness absence which is long term The average percentage of sickness absence which is long-term (defined as more than 20 consecutive working days) within the sector was 48.2 per cent at the mean and 49.6 per cent at the median. This is very similar to last year which saw a rate of 46.6 at the mean and 49.8 at the median. The percentage of long-term sickness absence within HE appears high in comparison with other sectors - the CIPD figure for all employees in 2013 was 18 per cent and for the public services 33 per cent. More detailed analysis indicates that the figure for the HE sector is not being skewed upwards by one or two extreme outliers as the median is even higher than the mean. This suggests that very high levels of long-term absence are commonplace across a large part of the sector and/or that short-term absence is under-reported. Again there are clear differences between the staff groups, with academic staff recording the highest levels of long-term sickness absence followed by manual staff (see figure 5). The other three staff groupings all recorded similar, lower levels (although these levels are still high in comparison to long-term absence levels outside the sector). 12

14 Figure 5: Percentage of sickness absence which is long-term by staff group Academic staff Manual staff Clerical staff Professional/technical staff Managerial staff % 2011/ /13 One explanation for the relatively low levels of absence described earlier can be seen in these results for long-term absence: short-term absence within the sector is currently being under-reported, particularly for academic staff (see section 12). This is leading to relatively low levels of overall sickness absence being shown and that which is being recorded tends to be long-term. The data also shows that London and the South have lower levels of long-term absence than the other regions and that the smallest and largest HEIs also have lower levels of long-term absence. Table 17: Percentage of sickness absence which is long term by institution type % Institution type 2011/ /13 Post-92 university & colleges Pre-92 university All staff average Table 18: Percentage of sickness absence which is long term by region % Institution type 2011/ /13 London and the South Rest of England Scotland Wales All staff average Table 19: Percentage of sickness absence which is long term by sector grouping % Group 2011/ /13 University Alliance GuildHE Million Russell Group Group All staff average

15 Table 20: Percentage of sickness absence which is long term by size of HEI % Number of staff 2011/ / All staff average Medical Schools There is a clear difference in results between those HEIs with and without medical schools. Those with medical schools exhibit lower levels of sickness absence and slightly lower long-term absence levels. This is perhaps to be expected as those HEIs with medical schools correlate with the larger, pre-92, Russell Group HEIs which have a profile of lower sickness levels. Table 21: Medical schools Average days lost per employee Average percentage working days lost Average length of absence period Percentage of sickness absence which is long-term HEIs with medical school HEIs without medical school Reasons for absence This question was the most problematic in the survey in terms of both design and data analysis. Most of the issues stem from the different ways in which sickness absence is recorded at individual HEIs, which have little consistency across the sector. In developing the survey, we initially considered using the definitions from the CIPD survey but during our piloting received feedback that these categories were too broad to be of value. They also included options on other absences not due to genuine illhealth and home/family responsibilities which we felt were not appropriate to a sickness absence survey. We received recommendations to use the definitions developed by the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which were the ones we eventually settled on. HEIs were asked to provide data on the number of days lost to sickness absence within these categories. Unfortunately a lot of HEIs returned data which fell into the other and unknown causes categories this accounted for over a fifth of the causes of absence (see figure 6). As such, UCEA will review the survey categories in consultation with HEIs before the 2013/14 survey is conducted. The chart below shows that psychiatric illness was the major cause of sickness absence within the sector during 2012/13, accounting for 17.5 per cent of the total days lost. This category includes anxiety, stress, depression and other psychiatric illness. Data on these four elements were collected separately but have been 14

16 aggregated together here as several HEIs were not able provide this information discretely. The second most common cause was cold/cough/flu which accounted for 12.7 per cent of days lost. Unfortunately, 12.2 per cent of days lost could not be classified within the categories used for this survey and is therefore shown as other. In addition, 12.2 per cent of the days lost within the sector were to unknown causes, i.e. reasons not reported at HEI level. Figure 6: Causes of sickness absence by percentage of total days lost % of days lost Psychiatric Cold/cough/flu Other Unknown Gastrointestinal Musculoskeletal Back problems Injury/fracture Tumours, cancers Chest ENT Headache/migraine Genitourinary etc Heart/cardiac/circulatory Infectious diseases Pregnancy related Nervous system Eye problems Dental and oral Skin disorders Endocrine/glandular Blood disorders Asthma Burns/poisoning etc Substance abuse N=73 This year HEIs were also asked to provide the top five causes of sickness absence both for long-term and absences which are not long-term. The primary cause of long-term sickness absence was stress, cited by 24 respondents out of the 76 who answered this question as being the main reason for long-term absence. A lot of respondents cited reasons which are not offered in the IOM categorisation and these fall under the other category. In the main the other reasons related to either undergoing or recovering from a hospital operation or were categorised as other or not known in the individual HEIs recording system. Other musculoskeletal problems was the other reason most commonly mentioned. When HEIs were asked to provide information on the second most common cause of longterm sickness absence the results were very similar with the same top three reasons in the same order. 15

17 Figure 7: Top five reasons for sickness absence which is long-term Responses th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st By far the most common cause of short-term sickness absence in HE is cold/cough/flu, cited by 64 of the 75 respondents who answered this question. When respondents were asked to state the second most common cause, 50 out of 73 cited gastrointestinal problems. Figure 8: Top five reasons for sickness absence which is not long-term Respons th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st The UCEA Health and Safety Committee will review the categories for reasons for absence in time for next year s survey. 16

18 9. Methods used by HEIs to manage sickness absence Methods used by HEIs to manage sickness absence are similar for both long and short-term absence. However, for long-term absence it is more common to use occupational health referrals; whereas for short-term absence, return to work interviews are commonly used, as are trigger points. No HEI reported using attendance bonuses. Figure 9: Methods used to manage long-term sickness absence Occupational health referral Involvement of line managers Return to work interview Counselling/EAP programmes Use of management information Phased return Trigger points Varying sick pay entitlement Compassionate/family leave Other Attendance bonuses % of respondents N=78 Figure 10: Methods used to manage sickness absence which is not long-term Return to work interview Involvement of line managers Trigger points Counselling/EAP programmes Use of management information Occupational health referral Compassionate/family leave Varying sick pay entitlement Phased return Other Attendance bonuses N=78 % of respondents Respondents were asked to specify the three most effective methods of managing sickness absence at their HEI divided by long-term and not long-term. The most 17

19 effective method of managing long-term sickness absence was occupational health referral, which was cited by over half of respondents. The second most effective method was the involvement of line managers. Figure 11: Analysis top three most effective method of managing long-term sickness absence Responses rd 2nd 1st The most effective methods for managing short-term sickness absence are slightly different. The involvement of line managers is seen as the most effective method followed by return to work interviews and the use of trigger points. Figure 12: Analysis top three most effective methods of managing sickness absence which is not long-term Responses rd 2nd 1st 18

20 10. Work-related sickness absence Respondents were asked if they know what percentage of sickness absence at their HEI is work-related. Only 13 replied that they did (16.7 per cent of respondents). Of these HEIs, the percentage of sickness absence that is work-related was 6.2 per cent at the mean and 3 per cent at the median, with a range of 0 per cent to 26 per cent. 11. Cost of sickness absence Respondents were asked if they monitor the cost of sickness absence only 22 (37.9 per cent) replied that they do. This corresponds almost exactly with the rate of 38 per cent reported in the 2013 CIPD survey for all participants. Only 12 institutions were able to give a cost per employee for the reporting period in question and this ranged from 314 to 1,245, with a mean of 683 and a median of 647. Again, this is similar to the figures reported by the latest CIPD survey, which showed 595 at the median for all organisations and 726 for those in the public services. 12. Reporting of sickness absence The inaugural UCEA sickness absence survey put forward the proposition that sickness absence in the sector is being under-reported, particularly for academic staff. This was explored in this year s survey and the results support it strongly. Whilst only 5 per cent of respondents felt that sickness absence for manual, clerical and professional/technical staff was under-reported, over 20 per cent felt that this was the case for managerial staff and over 80 per cent felt that this was the case for academic staff. Figure 13: Under-reporting of sickness absence by staff group % of respondents Academic staff Managerial staff Professional/technical staff Clerical staff Manual staff N=68 Those respondents who felt that sickness absence was being under-reported for at least one staff group were subsequently asked if they had taken any steps to improve reporting. Out of 65 respondents, 45 stated that they had. The most common 19

21 initiatives taken were to emphasise the importance of accurate reporting to management, the introduction of new policies and procedures in this area or the establishment of a new absence management system online reporting tools are starting to be introduced across the sector. 20

22

23

24 Pay Data Research Feature egotiations Wales Employ Key Messages Total Rewa earch Surveys England Up Parliamentary Lobbying E vents Scotland Interviews quality Senior Pay Surveys ay Consultations Pensions Media Monitoring FAQs H cal Academics Organisatio Training Northern Ireland HR Policy Wellbeing Europ UCEA January 2014 To find out more about UCEA contact us at: UCEA Woburn House 20 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9HU Tel: Fax: enquiries@ucea.ac.uk