Carrying out our responsibilities in 2006/07

The Commissioners received returns from 108 departments and agencies for their recruitment during 2005/06. Apart from one instance where an agency had identified a single breach of the Recruitment Code (which it subsequently took steps to correct), all departments and agencies enclosed a duly signed Certificate of Compliance.

Following our review of each department's and agency's assessment of their performance, meetings - usually in the form of site visits - were held with those organisations provisionally assessed as high risk, together with a selection of five of those provisionally assessed as medium risk.

As a result, the risk rating was adjusted in 12 cases. In one, the score moved upwards (from an initial rating of 'medium' to 'high') because the department had failed to declare information in its self-assessment relating to appointments made other than through the application of the recruitment principles. The compliance visit also identified an issue relating to the use of short-term appointments.

In the other cases, risk profiles were reduced following the visit. Downward adjustments were usually made because departments had not initially provided as much information as they could in support of their self-assessments and more was made available on the visits.

The final risk rating compared with the previous year was as follows:

Risk Rating	2004/05 profile (measured in 2006)	2005/06 profile (measured in 2007)
High	9 (8%)	15 (14%)
Medium	72 (66%)	74 (68%)
Low	29 (26%)	19 (18%)
Total	110 (100%)	108 (100%)

Particular weaknesses identified were:

failure by departments and agencies to carry out internal checks as required by the Code;
failure in the provision of guidance and up-to-date training to those involved in recruitment, particularly in sifting and interviewing;
a lack of evidence that assessment criteria were consistently applied throughout the recruitment process;
a lack of understanding of the rules covering the appointment of staff on short-term contracts without fair and open competition, and the need for such appointments to be carefully managed so as to avoid the risk of them becoming unlawful.

The auditors considered that a significant factor could have been that a number of departments and agencies were undergoing organisational change. This included restructuring HR functions, moves to shared services, delegation of responsibility to line managers and staff changes, and turnover in the HR function.

We were sometimes unable to find evidence that controls were in place - a particular concern at a time of change.

More careful completion of the self-assessment is clearly needed in some departments. Concerned about the overall increase in the risk rating, the Commissioners have:

written to HR Directors urging better management of appointments made other than through selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition;
written to all Permanent Secretaries inviting their personal interest in compliance monitoring;
given a greater emphasis to the management of exceptions to fair and open competition in the compliance monitoring questionnaire for the next round;
run a series of training courses for departmental staff on compliance monitoring.

We did, however, find examples of good practice in a number of departments - for example, in the training of panel members; the careful consideration of marketing and advertising strategies; well developed job and person specifications; and the requirement to declare existing relationships with candidates.