1. JE NETWORK DAY
24TH MAY 2006

2. JOB EVALUATION UPDATE
Pat Hemsley

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

4. 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% ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. 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.

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

16. MONITORING AND CONSISTENCY CHECKING

17. MATCHING PATTERNS UK AND WALES

18. JM and JE RESULTS MONITORING
At UK level
At Wales level

19. 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.

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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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

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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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.

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

34. FUTURE MONITORING
BMS
BAND 2
FOLLOW UP OF EARLY MONITORING

36. MANAGING THE REVIEW PROCESS
May 06

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

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

39. 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.

40. REVIEW MONITORING UK requirement TSR Working document
Gender implications

41. 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

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

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

44. 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”.

45. 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.

46. FORMAL STAGE Follows matching procedure QA Review panel
Consistency checking

47. 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?

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

49. 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

50. 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?

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

52. 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

53. FAQ’s
For consideration when developing local procedures

54. 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.(?)

55. 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 (?)

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. 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.

60. 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

62. WORKSHOPS
MAINSTREAMING/EMBEDDING JE
LOCAL EVALUATIONS
REVIEW PROCESS

63. 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?

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

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