UoR workforce update

Heads of HR – London Councils

Rachel Johnson

Audit Commission

22 January 2010

Summary

Overview of UoR framework for 2009/10

2008/09 scores – overall and KLOE 3.3

Learning from 2008/09

Identifying outcomes

Questions

UoR assessment framework 2009/10

No changes to the framework or high level KLOE

Three themes resulting in an overall judgement on VFM in the use of resources

Scored on 1 – 4 scale

For 2009/10 auditors will………….

Take a proportionate approach to the assessment, building on existing evidence

Focus on addressing two key questions for KLOE assessed in 2008/09:

What has changed in 2009/10?

What difference have those changes made in practice?

Apply a light touch refresh of existing evidence for KLOE scores of levels 3 and 4

Establish a baseline for KLOE not assessed in 2008/09

Specified key lines of enquiry for 2009/10

KLOE STCCs Districts Police Fire PCTs Managing finances 1.1 Planning for financial health

1.2 Understanding costs and achieving efficiencies

1.3 Financial reporting Governing the business 2.1 Commissioning and procurement

2.2 Use of information 2.3 Good governance 2.4 Risk management and internal control

Managing resources 3.1 Natural resources 3.2 Strategic asset management

3.3 Workforce

Workforce KLOE

Does the organisation plan, organise and develop its workforce effectively to support the achievement of its strategic priorities?

Pro

du

ctiv

e an

d s

killed

w

ork

forc

e

Wo

rkfo

rce p

lan

nin

g

Org

an

isatio

na

l c

han

ge

Div

ersity a

nd

go

od

p

eo

ple

ma

na

ge

me

nt

Use of resources 2009/107

2009/10 assessment timetable: local government

Key deadlines Date

Auditors submit indicative scores 21 April 2010

Audit Commission area challenge process on indicative scores

10 – 21 May 2010

Auditors submit final scores 30 July 2010

Audit Commission national quality assurance process

2 – 27 August 2010

London boroughs performed well overall in 2008/09

Overall Score - by Local Government Type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

4

3

2

1

4 1 1 2 0 1

3 16 16 57 22 22

2 29 19 135 9 10

1 0 0 7 1 0

Unitary Authorities 2009 Metropolitan District Councils 2009 District Councils 2009 County Councils 2009 London Borough Councils 2009

Overall Score

KLOE 3.3 – 2008/09 scores by sector

3.3 Score - by Sector

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4

3

2

1

4 0 3 1 0 0

3 0 46 17 16 24

2 0 133 27 23 120

1 0 19 0 0 8

Single Tier and County Council 2009 District Councils 2009 Fire & Rescue Authorities 2009 Police Authorities 2009 Primary Care Trusts 2009

3.3 Score

KLOE 3.3 - London PCTs performed better than other SHA areas

Score London PCTs All PCTs

Level 1 0% 5%

Level 2 68% 79%

Level 3 32% 16%

Level 4 0% 0%

Published UoR case studies – workforce

Dartford BC (level 3) – health and well being of staff

Sevenoaks DC (level 4) – workforce development planning and good people management

Wychavon DC (level 3) – Best Council to work for award

Lancashire Combined Fire Authority (level 4) – workforce management and diversity

Hertfordshire police authority (level 3) – employee engagement

Identifying outcomes

Challenging for auditors and audited bodies in 2008/09 Level 3 requires evidence of effective arrangements which have the

desired impact Effectiveness can be demonstrated through outcomes, i.e. the

results or consequences of an action Focus on the ‘so what?’ question to identify what difference the

arrangements have made in practice

For example A council reviewed its recruitment processes and as a result

introduced an E-recruitment system What examples might there be of outcomes related to this initiative?

Possible examples of outcomes

£XX savings in advertising spend

£XX savings in the cost of recruitment per post

X% increase in the volume of overall applications

X% increase in the volume of applications from targeted groups

Improved brand recognition for the council as an employer

Others?

Useful evidence to support outcomes

Staff satisfaction survey data Diversity profile data Progress against LG Equality Framework Low/managed/reducing sickness absence levels Efficiency savings (£) Examples of successful succession planning Effectiveness of recruitment processes, e.g. targeted recruitment Examples of any external recognition, e.g. best council to work for awards Examples of joint working with partners, e.g. student sharing placement

scheme between districts resulted in permanent appointments, working with local university to sponsor graduate entrant fire fighters

Examples of staff redeployment/secondment in response to demand levels arising from the economic downturn, e.g. from planning department to revenues and benefits

Any questions?