JE NETWORK DAY 24TH MAY 2006

JOB EVALUATION UPDATE Pat Hemsley

MATCHING ENGLAND – 99% complete SCOTLAND – 77% NORTHERN IRELAND – 63% WALES – 98%

LOCAL EVALUATIONS ENGLAND – 99% (composite figure with matching) – Organisations with more than 100 left to do are being “chased” SCOTLAND – 1% NORTHERN IRELAND – no data WALES – 3% ?

ASSIMILATION ENGLAND – 99% SCOTLAND – 8% NORTHERN IRELAND – about 15% WALES – 43% ( April data) (47.3% -May data)

REVIEWS ENGLAND – no data SCOTLAND – none NORTHERN IRELAND – 4.6% of assimilated WALES – 10% of assimilated

CURRENT POSITION – WALES MAY 2006 MATCHES ON CAJE UK - 382314 Wales – 24954 Wales – Approximately 98% of expected matches have been completed.

LOCAL EVALUATIONS EVALUATIONS ON CAJE UK - 24586 Wales - 105 9 organisations have commenced local evaluations Approximately 2800 local evaluations are predicted.

JE NEWS RECENT PUBLICATIONS -UK PROFILE UPDATE EQUALITY MONITORING REVIEW GUIDANCE USE OF ON LINE QUESTIONNAIRE MAINSTREAMING* WALES MONITORING REPORT PROFILE UPDATE EQUALITY MONITORING

IMMINENT PUBLICATION 2006 PAY UPLIFT ESR AND AFC ASSIMILATION GUIDANCE ON MATCHING AHPS 6/7 CAREER AND PAY PROGRESSION

DATA COLLECTION Activity monitoring will continue with a different emphasis Assimilation, including transitional points and protection/RRPs Local evaluations Reviews

WALES PROJECT STRUCTURE PMU continues until Dec 2006 JE subgroup likely to continue until completion of assimilation and reviews Activity monitoring will continue Wales results monitoring will continue Post implementation – Wales structure likely to be embedded in other Partnership Forum Subgroups.

JE SUBGROUP WORKPLAN Continue to monitor progress and results Reviews Trainees Mainstreaming JE

MONITORING AND CONSISTENCY CHECKING

MATCHING PATTERNS UK AND WALES

JM and JE RESULTS MONITORING At UK level At Wales level

UK RESULTS MONITORING Subgroup of JEG (formerly JEWP) Commenced July 05 Pat and Darryl are members Monitors usage of profiles based on requests from staff or management organisations Makes recommendations to Executive of Staff Council.

JOBS CONSIDERED BY UK MONITORING GROUP Includes Medical Secretaries District nurses AHPs APT’s Theatre nurses and technicians Radiographers Counsellors BMS Etc etc

WALES JM/JE MONITORING FRAMEWORK Wales Monitoring group Individual meetings with trusts Shared monitoring meetings eg BANDS 8/9 Ad Hoc monitoring Protocol for dealing with matching anomalies

WALES MONITORING GROUP Membership Chris Pratt: Maria Andrews; David Long. Kim Sandford; Steve Sloan; Tony Chatfield; Chris Jones Pat Hemsley; Darryl Williams Meeting fortnightly since September ’05 Motto – no news is good news

WALES MONITORING GROUP Work schedule based on UK monitoring Requests from staff/management organisations/trusts Feedback from monitoring meetings Timing – number of results on CAJE 32 exercises carried out since September 05.

WALES MONITORING GROUP Outcomes from monitoring include- Reports on monitoring activity to date General alert to all JE teams Queries followed up with specific trusts Feedback to JE subgroup/ Partnership Forum subgroup Referral to UK monitoring group Use of protocol for dealing with matching anomalies.

MONITORING WITH TRUSTS During Autumn 05, individual meetings were held with all 16 organisations to look at their results in an All Wales context. All trusts were offered further monitoring meetings, either individually or jointly 3 second round meetings have been held, 2 more in pipeline – offer still stands.

AD HOC MONITORING JE leads can raise concerns in partnership with either myself or Darryl and we will endeavour to give relevant information and refer to the Wales Monitoring group if appropriate.

PROTOCOL FOR DEALING WITH MATCHING ANOMALIES Will enable the JE subgroup in partnership to explore concerns raised which impact across organisations. To date, no requirement has been identified

METHODOLOGY 1. BROAD OVERVIEW OF RESULTS Eg “Christmas trees” for individual trusts or staff groups 2. DETAILED MONITORING Eg – AHP exercise

CHRISTMAS TREES Allow comparisons between trusts, by staff group. Can sometimes indicate possible issues Prepared for all organisations now that matching is almost complete Opportunity today to discuss usage

BROAD MONITORING CAVEATS CAJE is primarily a JE system with secondary monitoring function Records JOBS not PEOPLE Gives a snapshot of position on date of monitoring Depends on CAJE housekeeping Effect of consistency checking

DETAILED MONITORING CAVEATS Relies on information inputted by matching panels We do not have all job information Concentrates on Approved matches – not all will have consistency checked.

METHODOLOGY VARIES BY NATURE OF REQUEST USUALLY- BROAD OVERVIEW OF RESULTS USING MATCHING SUMMARY FUNCTION ON CAJE LOOKING AT PATTERNS OF MATCHING ACROSS TRUSTS DETAILED MONITORING WHERE THIS IS SUGGESTED BROAD MONITORING LOOKS AT ALL MATCHES; DETAILED MONITORING LOOKS AT ALL MATCHES AND APPROVED MATCHES.

RECENT MONITORING Nurse specialist Maintenance and Estates workers Bands 8 and 9

FUTURE MONITORING BMS BAND 2 FOLLOW UP OF EARLY MONITORING

MANAGING THE REVIEW PROCESS May 06

REVIEWS Sources of guidance Current position Monitoring Refresher training Process Practicalities FAQ’s

SOURCES OF GUIDANCE JE Handbook JEG guidance on Reviews Shared best practice

CURRENT POSITION Trusts have adopted differing approaches to reviews Some have been dealing with them as they emerge Others plan to leave them until assimilation is complete.

REVIEW MONITORING UK requirement TSR Working document Gender implications

REFRESHER TRAINING Reviews present a different perspective Good practice to “refresh” matchers who will be involved Topics could include Clarity on Job Statements Finding profiles Advice on matching factor 2 or other critical factors Checking validity of information Recap on questioning techniques

REVIEW PROCESS Local agreed process In line with JE handbook and recent guidance Wales JESG best practice guidance

STAGES Request for review Informal stage Formal stage Notification QA Panel Consistency Check Notification

INFORMAL STAGE Good practice, should reduce number of review panels Follows JEG guidance and Wales JESG recommendations May result in reduction of review panels If not resolved, moves to “formal stage”.

INFORMAL STAGE Additional evidence should be available Informal discussion about likely outcome of a formal review Experienced matchers in partnership can explain realistic outcomes Opportunity to identify which job holders are involved.

FORMAL STAGE Follows matching procedure QA Review panel Consistency checking

FORMAL STAGE - QA What , when, why, where, who? What has changed? When did it change? Why was information not initially included? Where does the change apply? Who is affected? Who has verified?

QA validation At QA stage, careful validation of new information should be sought before the information goes to the review panel.

REVIEW STAGE Panel membership – one member from original panel and 3-4 new matchers All documentation available Job holder advised of timing; available for questioning Review panel decides process

REVIEW PANEL PROCESS Follows matching procedure and guidance from training For Panels to decide? Check profile choice was correct? Check new information? Check impact on other factors? Choose different profile?

REVIEW PANEL OUTCOME Original match confirmed Match to a different profile same band different band No match – moves to local evaluation

FORMAL STAGE – CONSISTENCY CHECKING As with original match, the reviewed match should go through the consistency checking process Validate against similar matched outcomes If no match, check for reasons before moving to local evaluation

FAQ’s For consideration when developing local procedures

One member of a cluster requests a review? A. At informal stage, establish whether the individual believes they have been wrongly clustered or if their information affects the whole cluster If so , check with remaining staff if they wish to be involved in review process.(?)

Q ONE MEMBER OF A CLUSTER CHANGES BAND AS A RESULT OF A REVIEW A. If information appears to apply to other members of the cluster, deal on a case by case basis – equal value principles (?)

CAN JOBS MOVE DOWN AS WELL AS UP? Yes, this could happen if a review panel believes the additional information leads to a re-examination of other factors and they then match the job to a different profile in a lower band. The possibility of this happening should be reduced if an effective informal stage is used. A further possibility is that the review results in a no match leading to local evaluation which could result in a lower band.

Q A JOB HOLDER IS UNHAPPY WITH THE CHOICE OF PROFILE? A This could be resolved at the Informal stage – the band ( points score) is the important factor. For the review to go ahead, the job holder would need to provide additional information to support their concern. In practical terms, a match to a different (new) profile in the same band has no impact on pay.

Q. CAN A JOBHOLDER INSIST ON BEING PRESENT AT THE REVIEW? NO. However, it is good practice to ensure they are available to answer questions. Some trusts have agreed that job holders will be contacted to discuss their jobs.

Q. CAN A JOB HOLDER REQUEST REVIEW ON BASIS OF RESULTS IN ANOTHER TRUST? No. The review is against the original match of his /her job, and must be supported with evidence to explain request.

Q. DOES THE REVIEW PROCESS REPLACE THE AFC APPEALS PROCESS? Yes – For JE/JM, the review process is the mechanism for resolving disagreements about matching or local evaluation Ts and Cs 47.11 Appeals procedure available for further use where misapplication of process is alleged. JE handbook, 7.4 and 10.2.8

WORKSHOPS MAINSTREAMING/EMBEDDING JE LOCAL EVALUATIONS REVIEW PROCESS

MAINSTREAMING How will you ensure the principles of the JE scheme are embedded in your organisation? What are the risks? What Wales infrastructure is needed?

LOCAL EVALUATIONS How can momentum be maintained? Questions on use of CAJE? Getting started Consistency checking

REVIEWS What are the concerns/issues? How can number of reviews be managed? How are reviews being timetabled?