UoR workforce update Heads of HR – London Councils Rachel Johnson Audit Commission 22 January 2010

Summary Overview of UoR framework for 2009/ /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

Workforce KLOE Does the organisation plan, organise and develop its workforce effectively to support the achievement of its strategic priorities? Productive and skilled workforce Workforce planning Organisational change Diversity and good people management

Use of resources 2009/ /10 assessment timetable: local government Key deadlinesDate Auditors submit indicative scores21 April 2010 Audit Commission area challenge process on indicative scores 10 – 21 May 2010 Auditors submit final scores30 July 2010 Audit Commission national quality assurance process 2 – 27 August 2010

London boroughs performed well overall in 2008/09

KLOE 3.3 – 2008/09 scores by sector

KLOE London PCTs performed better than other SHA areas ScoreLondon PCTsAll PCTs Level 10%5% Level 268%79% Level 332%16% Level 40%

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?