audit and assurance services audit report …hr+recruitment+report3555_1800.pdf · audit and...

AUDIT AND ASSURANCE SERVICES AUDIT REPORT

Subject:

Audit of Recruitment & Selection at HQ Calton House

Audit ref/date of report:

xx/x/xxxx

Auditor:

Adam Quin

Overall conclusion:

Limited Assurance

DISTRIBUTION:

For action: For information:

Director Corporate Services: Catherine Topley Chief Executive

Head of Human Resources : Janice Barclay Director of Operations

Director of Strategy and Innovation

Risk Monitoring & Audit Committee

CONTENTS

1

Background 1

http://dc1-hv-intranet1/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SPS-refreshed-logo-November-2013.jpg

2

Objectives 1

3

Findings 2 - 12

4

Good Practice 12

5 Audit opinion

12

6

Audit findings and management responses 13 - 17

Annex A

Audit and Assurance Reporting Policy 18

Annex B

Audit scope and objectives 19 - 22

Report issued by: G Allan

Head of Audit & Assurance

xxxx xxxx xxxxxx

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE

Scottish Prison Service, Audit & Assurance Services, Calton House

1.

AUDIT OF RECRUITMENT & SELECTION AT HQ

1. BACKGROUND

This review of Recruitment and Selection procedures at SPS Headquarters was commissioned at

the request of the Chief Executive. This audit review took place during February 2015. The audit

we have undertaken is a review of the SPS controls and processes for staff recruitment,

promotion, regrading, vacancy filling, the use of consultants and secondments and temporary

recruited personnel and all job evaluation processes for Headquarters SPS. The detailed scope

and objectives is attached as Annex B. Audit findings are detailed at Section 3 and audit

assessment at Section 5. The Management responses to the recommendations are in section 6.

2. OBJECTIVES

2.1 Source of review: Request from the Chief Executive to review the process of job evaluation

and recruitment and selection for Calton House Staff during the period xxxx xxxxx xxxx to

xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx .

2.1.1 Main Objective:

The purpose of this audit is to provide assurance to the Chief Executive, the SPS Advisory Board,

RMAC and other major stakeholders that the processes for promotion, re-grading, vacancy

filling, the use of consultants, secondments and temporary recruited personnel and all job

evaluation processes for Headquarters Calton House have been soundly and correctly followed

for the period xxx xxxxxx xx to xxxxxxxxxxxx xx. Assurance is also sought that the recruitment and

selection processes used during this period were transparent, relevant, and fair and that

necessary approvals and authorisations were granted at the appropriate levels.

2.2 Control framework:

At a corporate level, SPS has policies and procedures in place which should ensure compliance

with sound recruitment and selection criteria. There should be clear management accountability

for all vacancy approvals with business cases compiled and budgets approved. There should be a

compelling job evaluation stating the job purpose, key responsibilities and selection processes.

There should also be a mechanism to provide assurance that all applications have adhered to SPS

policy and guidelines, the overarching principles of the Civil Service Management Code and the

Civil Service Commission Recruitment Principles, current legislation and are evidenced with

appropriate approval. There are processes for monitoring security information and document

retention.

2.3 Risk assessment:

Keys risks were identified as:

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


2.

• Formal approval process for SPS recruitment and selection are not kept current.

This could lead to a lack of control in recruiting the right personnel, increasing the

risk of damage to SPS reputation.

• Industrial relations are harmed due to Management not following agreed policies,

procedures and guidelines for job evaluation, recruitment and selection.

• SPS recruitment and selection policies and processes do not adhere to current UK

and EU legislation. This could lead to financial loss and reputational damage to

SPS.

• SPS job evaluation processes are not clearly defined; therefore they do not

maintain business focus and may not be appropriate in all cases, leading to failure

to meet stated organisational objectives.

3. FINDINGS

At the request of the Chief Executive, we have undertaken a review of the controls and processes

for staff recruitment and selection. Risks associated with recruitment and selection represent an

important area for any organisation. When recruiting staff, SPS must demonstrate a fair and open

procedure to ensure that there is a clear and consistent process in place for selection and that all

potential candidates are treated in an equal and fair manner, in line with the Civil Service

Recruitment Principles and SPS Procedures.

The Director of Corporate Services and Head of Human Resources has overall responsibility for

recruitment and selection within SPS.

In the financial year 2014/15, there were 28 appointments made at HQ. There are xx appointments

via Agency Framework Agreements. Currently, there are a total of 320 personnel at Headquarters.

There is no complement for Headquarters staffing.

3.1 Control Environment.

Testing was carried out against the SPS recruitment and selection guidance which is based on the

Civil Service Commission Recruitment Principles. The legal requirement is for selection for

appointment to the Civil Service to be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.

All three elements have to be met for the appointment to be lawful. Whilst we note the difference

between CSCRP and SPS Procedures there is a requirement to demonstrate fairness, openness and

accountability in all recruitment.

3.2 Control Activity:

SPS recruitment and selection is managed by the Human Resources Function from two different

locations, one at SPS College and the other at Headquarters Calton House, each with their own

responsibilities for overseeing all Headquarters staffing resources. Both teams deal with a large

variety of recruitment requirements, all of which are not covered in the scope of this audit. The

HQ team is responsible for recruiting and selection of grades B to D, including ensuring jobs are

subject to evaluation, and for temporary appointments, while the College team is responsible for

recruiting grades E to I and specialist recruitment. The Employee Relations & Reward Team is

responsible for the operation and management of the job evaluation process which is implemented

through a job evaluation panel that includes TUS representation. The recruitment and selection

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


3.

teams at both locations carry out a wide range of responsibilities for the administration of all

recruitment campaigns. We were informed that since 1st April 2014, there have been 99

recruitment campaigns. This is a considerable amount of work and data which needs to be

assessed and controlled and can include job design, vacancy identification, business cases and

budgetary approval. We were informed that all interview panel members are trained in Interview

Techniques and during the period covered by this audit, 160 staff has undergone this training.

There are comprehensive procedural guidelines; with external and internal process flowcharts

which set out the stages for all recruitment campaigns and we are satisfied that these are firmly

embedded. These are supported partly by the Applicant Tracking System (ATS) which provides a

central location and database for SPS recruitment efforts, ATS allows the resourcing teams to

streamline the talent acquisition process and simplify applicant tracking onto one system. Data is

collected from internal and external applications via the ATS front-end, located on the SPS

Intranet and website or is extracted and uploaded from applicants on job boards. Only permanent

posts are recorded in full on the ATS system. We were informed that temporary posts,

development posts and secondments are not always recorded, if at all. We note that this was

deliberate SPS Policy however; there still remains a requirement to have adequate control

measures as stated in 3.1 above. We were also informed that there is a working group looking at

enhancing the current ATS system to incorporate all types of vacancies. We would like to see this

expedited to provide additional assurance for all recruitment in SPS. The ATS system allows the

team to streamline processes, engage the right candidates, and monitor key metrics. The data held

within ATS, is predominantly personal data. We were satisfied that this data is tightly controlled

and access to the online recruitment live site is strictly managed by HR for HR. The recording of

all vacancies on the ATS system would be beneficial as data management could be improved and

it also, provides assurance that progression gateways for each recruitment campaign are being

fully met. The system allows the team to monitor and control these effectively. As previously

stated, the current ATS system does not cater for development posts, secondments and temporary

vacancies and we feel that this is a weakness as it allows some “off system” recruitment to be

progressed with limited internal control measures.

Recommendation 1: The HR Function should expedite the ATS project to enhance the system to

ensure that where possible, records for recruitment are properly progressed in line with the Civil

Service Recruitment Principles and SPS procedures and can demonstrate fairness, openness and

accountability within our legal requirements.

Records for all recruitment campaigns must be retained for 24 months from the end of the

campaign (on-line records are archived automatically). For fixed term and short term contracts,

the advertisement and supporting documents must be retained for the duration of the appointment.

There is no centralised advertising budget for roles advertised for HQ. Budget provision is agreed

with the recruiting manager prior to the advertising strategy being agreed. A member of the

Resourcing Team will liaise with recognised advertising agencies to agree publications and costs.

This is then shared with the recruiting manager who would then authorise the spend. This

authority is crucial to progressing to recruit.

All recruitment folders and career folders are held securely at SPS Headquarters Calton House.

There is a process for authorised personnel to check out career and recruitment case files which is

in the form of a spreadsheet for each. We were additionally informed during our audit that a

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


4.

career file had gone missing. To date, it has not been found. This is a security information breach

which has now been officially reported after prompting by AAU. The system which operates is a

spreadsheet where the recipient’s name is recorded on the spreadsheet on receipt and the entry is

then deleted when the file is returned. Staff informed us that the removal of files is limited and

that the recording system is not used. These records can assist with the detection as well as

prevention in relation to instances of the loss of critical data which has been highlighted to us

during the audit and these records should be retained. We were informed and shown a book which

was a new addition to the process which records the movement of files. However, the recording

system we were shown was not robust enough to be of assistance as it did not receive a signature

for the file being removed and there was no check of the file contents upon its return. This process

should be reviewed.

Recommendation 2: The HR Function should review their case file sign out and recording

process and introduce a sign out procedure which records and tracks the access to case files and

provides a record of monitoring for security and assurance purposes.

In all of the cases we reviewed, there were no checklists to provide assurance that the correct

documents were enclosed or to state documents were missing from the file. We did have some

documents reported missing to us from the recruitment files during our audit.

Recommendation 3: All recruitment case files should be itemised using a checklist against the

status flowcharts to ensure adherence to process and to support self and internal auditing.

There was no Relationship Declaration in any of the recruitment case files which we reviewed.

We were informed that this was completed on an exception basis and when we asked to see if any

declarations had been completed, we were informed that there was no record of any in any of the

files either at HQ or at SPSC. The introduction of such a form would assist in eliminating any real

or perceived unequal treatment or conflict of interest occurring throughout the recruitment process

or within working relationships. This would be relevant in situations where a member of the

shortlisting or interviewing panel has a potential conflict of interest because of a personal, family,

financial or other relationship with applicants/candidates. This matter must be raised with the

Resourcing Team. We have seen no evidence of this during our audit despite its mention in the

recruiting assurance visit checklist template.

Recommendation 4: A recruitment declaration for panel members should be considered and

added to the recruitment procedures to assist with full transparency of the process.

We had occasion to sample 20 of the recruitment case files, our sample cut across all three

Directorates namely, Corporate Services, Operations Directorate, Strategy & Innovation and also

the Chief Executive’s Office. We found the following exceptions in the samples we reviewed:

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


5.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Temporary Role (Case No xx not recorded on the ATS system)

There was no business case for this role and no copy of the authority to recruit in the case file.

However, there is still a requirement for a business case and relevant authority to be recorded

against the file as stated in the recruitment guidelines. See recommendation 3.

Recommendation 5: A review of all case files should take place to ensure a relevant business

case with signatory authorisation against budget is documented, valid and intact. Verbal

agreements should always be supported by documentary evidence to ensure due process.

Furthermore, this case reported evidence on xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx who had applied for the post.

The sift marking grids were completed on the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and there xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. There was no copy of the

notification to the unsuccessful xxxxxxxxxxx held on file. See Recommendation 3.

The xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx put forward for interview panel which was held on

xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx. (This is less than xxxxxxxxxxxx since the sift occurred.) SPS Recruitment

guidance states that five days should elapse to allow for any appeals following the sift process. In

addition, it would also allow candidates equal preparation time for the impending

interview/assessment. This did not occur. Additionally, under the guidelines, there is no appeal

after the initial sift process and we were informed by HR Staff that for temporary posts, there is no

appeal process, (this is not written anywhere in the guidance and appears to be an unwritten rule.)

There is no laid down process or guidance for the recruitment of a temporary role and it is very

much at the discretion of the manager. However, custom and practice is that we follow the

principles of the Civil Service Recruitment Principles i.e. the role is advertised (in an appropriate

way, reflective of the role and length of time), there is an assessment exercise of the applicant

pool and that the final outcome can be justified. Open and fair are the guiding principles.

Recommendation 6: The principles of fairness, openness and accountability should be applied

and recorded in all our internal recruiting processes including temporary posts, development posts

and secondments.

The Sift marking grids in this case were all scored; comments adjacent to the scores were not

recorded and there was a change to one of the scores from a 4 to a 3 marking which was amended

but with no justification or comment to support the change. In addition the change itself had not

been signed, which is good practice for official document amendments. The Interview Grid

marking record xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx marked for one essential criterion and

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx scored. The remainder of the desirable criteria had been recorded

and all were scored complete with comments.

In this particular case, we observed it had been dealt with consistently with the exception of the

scoring error change and the comments to support the essential criteria but no scoring was made

against the comments. The decision to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx interview leaves little or no time for

candidate preparation. The CSC recruitment guidance is clear about the recruitment being open

and giving reasonable access to information about the job. The lack of preparation time in this

case could be questioned. There are copious notes on the desirable criteria recorded against

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


6.

xxxxxx candidates. Again, we are not totally convinced from the evidence we were provided in

this case that it is an example of best practice. Best practice would be to hold

interviews/assessments against the CSC Recruitment Guidelines. See Recommendation 6.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Permanent Role (Case xx recorded on ATS system)

We reviewed case xx and found that the case file had no local authority to recruit or business case

approved documentation on file. There were no copies of sift marking grids, and no copies of the

interview marking grids. There was a copy of the external advert which allowed us to interrogate

the ATS system. See Recommendation 3. On reviewing the ATS system, we were satisfied that

the authority, business case and budget approval were intact along with the interview marking

grids clearly recorded on the system. When we made further enquiries as to how the file had

come to lose essential documentation, it was revealed that an administrative error had occurred.

We were informed by HR staff that the file had documentation xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. There are clear, definitive periods of time for which records should be kept and

remain accessible which is detailed in the recruitment guidance. However, there was a lack of

evidence of compliance with these matters. In addition, we found no evidence of what records

were created xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, with the exception of

rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This is a considerable risk, particularly to cases

not recorded on the ATS system.

Recommendation 7: The HR Function should introduce a document xxxxxxxxxxxxx policy and

training for staff to ensure that only documents no longer required for the business are properly

recorded xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

We note the Head of HR comments in regards to document xxxxxxxxxxxxx policies being in

place. It was ascertained during the audit that a number of documents

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and there was no fall-back position.

This evidence again proves the validity of the ATS system in assuring that due process has been

followed. It also highlights the requirement for a stricter document xxxxxxxxxxx policy to be in

place for all administration staff to follow and further confirms the need for self-auditing

measures to be implemented in the department immediately. See Recommendations 7 & 16.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Temporary Role (Case xx not recorded on ATS system)

We reviewed case xx and noted that there was no business case and no vacancy approval within

the file documentation. There was no sifting marking grid. There wxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for

the role and also an interview grid marking sheet, however, the interview grid marking sheet was

not completed. See Recommendation 3. This raises questions against the CSC recruitment

guidance principles and our requirement to evidence and ensure that the appointment has been

made against these and the legal framework. This case may have been subject to an administrative

error xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as previously reported. However, we were unable to

ascertain if this was the case or not and is highlighted by exception to the laid down procedures

followed by many other recruitment campaigns. This case highlights the need to have all

recruitment and selection subject to robust procedures recorded and evidenced against the CSC

Principles.

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


7.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Temporary Role (Case xx not recorded on ATS system)

In this case file there were no sifting grids.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Temporary Role (Case xx not recorded on ATS system)

In this case file there were no sifting grids for 3 of the candidates.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Temporary Role (Case xx not recorded on ATS system)

In this case file there were no sifting grids for 3 of the candidates.

We reviewed an additional 6 cases at SPSC all of which were recorded on the ATS system and

found these all to be well evidenced and properly recorded as per the laid down recruitment

procedures. The cases which are all temporary posts, development posts or secondments are not

being processed with the same detail or assurance (as permanent roles are) which we would deem

as best practice.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We reviewed txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .We asked to see SPS

guidance for this type of recruitment and were told that there was none. We understand these were

the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. HR staff informed us that these types of

recruitment were usually completed under the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for which there is detailed

guidance.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We reviewed this case from records in the career file of the post holder as the post was not

advertised due to the zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz for which we could find no formal SPS guidance.

Txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. We could find no

job description on file. We were also informed that there was no job evaluation completed to date.

The role is graded at SPS band x and is part of the restructuring of existing posts within

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Directorate. The Director has confirmed that the budget is in

place. The post holder xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In this case there

were several items of communication in the file which referred to the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Communications also centred on the future xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and the role holder

would be free to apply xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. There was also mention of the

fact that the current role may be advertised under the CSC Principles

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx the post holder would not have to

xxxxxxxxxxxxx and this was their preferred method of recruitment. In this case, txxxxxxxxxxxxx

would appear to have been utilised in order that the post holder

cxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The role holder would axxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. On checking whether TUS or PLR had been consulted we were

informed by our TUS colleagues they have no knowledge of the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and they were

not aware that it was even available. They were fully aware of our normal process of

xxxxxxxxxxx.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx.

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


8.

We reviewed this case from recruitment records case file xx and noted that there was a full job

description, business case and budgetary approval in place and that the job was advertised on the

ATS System externally and closed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In this case the xxxxxxxxxxx would

appear to have been utilised in order that the post holder xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In the

communications on file there is mention of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx dated xxxx xxxxx xxxx, however on

checking with HR staff we have confirmed this was in fact under the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

for which we could find no formal SPS guidance.

Recommendation 8: If SPS is to fully adopt the xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in addition to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, HR should develop a formal

guidance for staff to administer it. This should also be promoted and published in the HR

Communications website.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We reviewed one case which HR advised us that the role had been recruited xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Our understanding of this case was that the xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx was followed in this case with the exception of the initial application. We have seen a

memo which states that the Resourcing Team received an application from xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. There are references in the file indicating that an application was

received. We asked the Resources team twice for a copy of the application but this has failed to

appear. There is a memo in the career file which may suggest that someone from SPS approached

the individual rather than the individual approaching SPS. The eligibility criteria stated in the

Routes to Employment produced jointly by HR Recruitment and Employment Relations &

Reward dated xxxxxxx xxxx states: Ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

We spoke to The Director of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and xx fully accepted that due process

was followed with the exception of the initial application. xx accepted that a mistake had been

made. xx also stated that he had made a mistake in xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx and that he had

been guided and advised by HR colleagues throughout xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx.

National Framework Agreement

Procurement Services informed us that SPS currently utilise the National Framework Agreement

for Temporary & Interim Staff awarded by Scottish Government. This Framework Agreement

includes 21 suppliers to variously provide coverage across Scotland and across the required range

of staff disciplines used across the various branches of government in Scotland.

We requested to see a list of all roles recruited under the National Framework Agreement

currently working within SPS Headquarters and we were not provided with a list immediately as it

was not up to date. When we did receive the list we sampled 8 out of the xx from the list we were

presented with, which we later found was not completely accurate. Our conclusion was the

information we were supplied with initially was not accurate and is of concern.

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


9.

Recommendation 9: HR should create and maintain an up to date central registry for all National

Framework Agreements.

During our review of agency & contractors working at HQ we found the following:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Case xx: Agency

This case was a temporary contract which was tendered by SPS to fulfil a particular need. We

noted that there was no business case and no vacancy or budget approval within the file

documentation. When we enquired, we were informed that the Chief Executive was asked by the

Director of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx about this position and it was authorised. However, we

would like to see documentation supporting such requests in order that procedures are being

applied equally and to support the process and recruitment principles.

The contract was tendered on the xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx This was closed on the xxxxx

xxxxxxxxx and the commencement of work date was xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx. We have seen a memo

which was dated xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx which may suggest that xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxl was being sought over and above the actual services. Evidence to support this

situation is contained within the audit files.

On further examination, we found that the tender was made for xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx under the SG

Framework Agreement. The contract we saw specified a rate of xxxxxx per hour xxxxx xxxxxx

xxxxxxx xxxx. There was also a clause in the contract with the option of xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx.

xxxx xxxxx xxxx are normally provided by SPSxxxx xxxx xxxxxs. We recognise the Director of

xxxxx xxxxx xxxx has the authority to recruit any appointment. However, it would be good

practice to ensure that there is xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx. .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Case xx: Agency

This case had no local authority to recruit and no budget approval form in the case file.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Case No xx: Agency

No local authority to recruit and no budget approval form in the file.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Case No xx: Agency

No local authority to recruit form and no budget approval form in the file.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Case No xx: Agency


xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx - Case No xx: Agency


xxxxxxx xxxxxxx - Case No xx: Agency


OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


10.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Case xxxxx: Agency

This case was an agency contract via framework agreement and was recorded as being on a

rolling contract. The appointment to the role was in xxxxxxxxxxxx at a cost of xxxxxxxxx. The

SPS has now been paying this full time contract for a period of approximately xxxxxxxx. This

case highlights a need for cost control and performance evaluation measures to be recorded and

implemented. One example would be not to have the life of a contract exceed a set time period.

This forces annual bidding or at least renewal discussions with the current supplier or contractor.

In the examples we have seen for internal and external selection, there is evidence of good

practice where authority to recruit and budget approval is signed off prior to the actual selection

processes. In addition, these are recorded. However, in the case of temporary and agency

appointments, there appears to be a lack of evidence on file of this practice being followed.

There was no evidence in any of the Agency files to suggest that any control measures were in

place at the time of the audit. Proper records provide evidence of the effectiveness of (or

otherwise) of agency staff and evidence of early problems that strengthen the organisations

position in exercising the option to extend the contract or not. Without good record keeping and

evidence it is difficult to defend the continuation of such contracts. The cost for all Agency

Framework Temporary staff spends for the period covered by this audit at HQ is £1,425,345.47.

All such proposals should demonstrate that the spending proposal has clear and concise spending

objectives.

Recommendation 10: SPS should develop clear policy and guidance including reporting

requirements control measures, line manager responsibilities and a monitoring plan covering key

timelines, critical deliverables and performance reporting for all National Framework

Agreements.

Recommendation 11: All and any extensions to the short term agency framework agreements

should be supported by clear evidence including support for funding the extension period.

Job Evaluation

Job Evaluation (JE) is a systematic form of assessment which provides the basis for a grading

structure to which salary rates are subsequently added. JE is used to assess the relative ‘worth’ of

a job description and person specification. The ‘worth’ of the job translates into a number of

points which in turn determines the pay grade. Jobs are placed in a rank order according to overall

demands placed on the job holder. In some JE schemes jobs are placed in rank order – this is not

necessarily the case in the SPS JE Scheme. JE should provide the basis for a fair and orderly

grading structure.

The process consists of a Job description form complete with a business case and authorisation.

This is sent to Employee Relations and the job evaluation process is initiated. The process

includes the use of computer software which was developed by KPMG in 1995 and customised to

suit SPS requirements; the software is called “Equate” and we are currently using version 3 (this

software is no longer supported by KPMG.) We reviewed some recent evaluations carried out by

the team and we are satisfied that the process is being carried out properly despite the absence of

up to date software, guidance and training. There is a JE manual which we were informed is

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


11.

referred to by JE Panels. This manual provides guidance on the scheme. Panel members are

trained in the implementation of the scheme albeit on an informal basis.

JE currently uses job descriptions which they consider to be correctly graded as ‘benchmarks’ for

the job being evaluated. However, in the current job evaluation Manual 2nd edition dated July

2005, six of the benchmark job descriptions do not currently exist within SPS nor do they reflect

our current business requirements and a further two of these have been reconfigured within the

estates services. Confidence in the job evaluation scheme may be seriously undermined with the

use of outdated software and the ten year old manual which is overdue a review. We were

informed that a review of Job Descriptions is currently on-going by an external consultant. In our

opinion, the current SPS Job Evaluation process is being adhered to by staff as best they can but

the software and benchmarking tools are not fit for purpose and HR should expedite the project to

revise and review the current system or introduce a new one.

Recommendation 12: HR should revise and review the current system or introduce a new Job

Evaluation system.

We were also informed that there is no formal training for job evaluation personnel, including

software input or panel members who may also be participating in any appeals procedure. This is

a weakness. There is an appeals mechanism and the JE Appeal panel is chaired by the Head of

Human Resources and a TUS member, (the process is fully described in the manual.) We were

informed that during the period of xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx there have been no appeals

recorded. The training has to date consisted of shadowing for staff and this includes the TUS/PLR

representatives.

Recommendation 13: Job Evaluation training should be formalised in order to support those

contributing to the process and to protect the organisation from risk.

xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx – xxxxxxx xxxxxx

During our audit, we had occasion to review some xxxxxxx job evaluations and followed up the

pay process following the job evaluation of a reconfigured job. We found xxxxxxxxxx with

regards to a xxxxxxx job reconfiguration which was carried out via the JE process. On further

investigation it was revealed that the reconfigured post was that of the xxxxxx xxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx. The Job Evaluation team started looking at the paperwork in xxxx xxxxxx. It was

processed and recommended “xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx. There xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxs in role at present; further investigations revealed

from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx that axxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx despite the

confirmation of the new role appointment being made in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. There is no

explanation for this in the file notes.

We were informed by HR that this action was detailed in the JE Manual; however, on reviewing

this document we can find no confirmation of xxxxxxxxxx in the JE Manual. When we spoke to a

representative from the ER&R Team we were informed that this was ‘custom and practice’ rather

than included instructions in the JE Manual.

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


12.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx..

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx ssssssssss a

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..

Recommendation 14: HR Function should ensure that all information forwarded xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Senior Assignment Panels:

We also had occasion to review the Senior Assignment Panel Minutes and the Surplus

Management Group Minutes and we were satisfied that this process is recorded and final

decisions are recorded. There was no rational for the final decision was provided in the minutes

and a review of this area should be considered.

Information and Communication:

The HR Recruitment Guidelines SharePoint Website has numerous forms and policy documents

to inform staff of policy and the existence of these forms to utilise when a vacancy is created, this

includes some pre selection forms, the selection process itself and the post campaign information

which includes pre-loaded templates is very useful and easy to navigate. There are some forms on

the site which are out of date e.g. The Specialist Post Policy 2005 in the pre selection section is

now no longer in place and the assurance templates require to be reviewed and updated.

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


13.

Recommendation 15: A review of all the documents held on the SharePoint site should be

carried out to ensure that they are up to date and we would also suggest that they are version

controlled.

Monitoring Internal Control:

The monitoring and internal control of the documentation leaves room for improvement. There is

no recorded process for self-audit at HQ by HR Business Partners as laid down in the SPS

recruiting guidelines. We found three forms on the HR SharePoint site entitled, Recruitment

Campaign Review and Assurance Form, Recruitment Assurance Visits Outcomes Checklist and

Recruitment Assurance Visits which were clearly for self-audit purposes. We found no evidence

of their use and none of the cases we audited had been subject to any self-audit process. The

content of the forms themselves is also in need of updating and review. The Resources Team at

SPSC complete a self-reporting audit. A follow up audit by KPMG or the Commissioner’s Office

is based on risk reported e.g. if there was high risk areas or if you have not been audited in past 3

years we will receive a site visit. SPS have been audited twice in the past 4 years the last time

was in 2013.

Recommendation 16: The HR Function should carry out a review of the current self-audit

paperwork and in addition commit to a schedule of regular self-audits in order to provide

secondary assurance that procedural guidance is being fully adhered to.

4. Good Practice

The following items of Good practice were identified:

Applicant Tracking System

160 Staff Trained as Interviewers

5. Audit Opinion

The recruitment of effective, efficient and deserving candidates is a very difficult task for any

Human Resources Department. The importance of this task cannot be underestimated. The

Applicant Tracking System provides gateways and assurance checks which ensure processes are

being strictly adhered to and in all those cases on the ATS system we sampled we found them to

be correct. The majority of errors we found during our audit were where documentation did not

evidence or support due process. In addition there are high cost risks associated with incorrect

recruitment and selection decisions which must be fully justified. In relation to permanent staff,

we can offer Reasonable Assurance.

The recruitment and selection of temporary posts, development posts and secondments are not

properly recorded in all instances and we would like to see a more formal process aligned to the

ATS system to ensure that due process is evidenced in all cases. Therefore, we can only offer

Limited Assurance for the recruitment and selection of temporary posts, development posts and

secondments at HQ.

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE


14.

The National Framework Agreement for Temporary & Interim Staff also leaves room for

improvement, there is no policy and guidance for the management of these posts and no

performance evaluation and we have seen evidence of mixed practice across the cases we have

reviewed. Procedures for the day-to-day activities of temporary staff and interims should be

implemented and followed. As a result, we can only offer Limited Assurance for the

management of National Framework Agreement for Temporary & Interim Staff at HQ.

On the basis of our findings, we can offer an overall Limited Assurance for the controls in place

for the Audit of Recruitment & Selection at HQ Calton House. The SPS requires fairness,

openness and accountability to be an integral part of its recruitment and selection process in

order to avoid any unwarranted reputational risk.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank all the managers and staff at Human Resources Department at both HQ

and SPSC for their courtesy and co-operation during this audit and for the facilities and

assistance provided.

Adam Quin

Senior Auditor

xxxxx xxxxxxx

RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSES

Audit and Assurance Services, Calton House

15

Finding Recommendation Management responses (Including Timescales for

implementation of actions)

Risk

Rec 1 We were informed that there is a working group looking at enhancing the current ATS system to incorporate all types of vacancies. We would like to see this expedited to provide additional assurance for all recruitment in SPS. The ATS system allows the team to streamline processes, engage the right candidates, and monitor key metrics.

The HR Function should expedite the ATS project to enhance the system to ensure that where possible records for recruitment are properly progressed in line with the Civil Service Recruitment Principles and SPS procedures in line with fairness, openness and accountability within our legal requirements.

Work was already being progressed on this recommendation at the time of the audit. Further work is being scoped to identify the feasibly of aligning electronic -HR with the Application Tracking System (ATS) to ensure one system holds all of an individual’s personal data and employment history. This will be subject to approval at the Business Planning cycle which is due to commence in October 2015. The Internal Temporary Appointments to the ATS system is currently being tested. Internal Temporary Appointments are defined as vacancies & opportunities to be advertised across the SPS estate On implementation the ATS system will support the recruitment of staff and provision of management information in the following categories: • Internal & external permanent (already in place) • External fixed term (already in place) • Internal temporary appointments The next stages: • Testing and follow up action • Systems update • HR Guidance Timescale: Completion date: 09 October 2015 Following the completion of the above, further work will be undertaken to review the feasibility of including all agency staff are recorded on our HR systems. This will be subject to the Business Planning process that will commence in October 2015. Timescale:

High



16

Subject to Business Planning cycle.

Rec 2 The recording system we were shown was not robust enough to be of assistance as it did not receive a signature for the file being removed and there was no check of the file contents upon its return. This process should be reviewed.

The HR Function should review their case file sign out and recording process and introduce a sign out procedure which records and tracks the access to case files and provides a record of monitoring for security and assurance purposes.

Accepted. Enhanced manual signing in and out procedures are now in place, and this is augmented by an electronic recording system which records all transactions. HR staff have all been advised of this revised process and the need to ensure that this is properly adhered to. This revised process has been reviewed and successfully spot checked by the Director of Corporate Services and the Head of HR on a number of occasions. Further regular checks will be undertaken on an unannounced basis approximately every 2 months. Timescale: Complete

High

Rec 3 In all of the cases we reviewed there were no checklists to provide assurance that the correct documents were enclosed or to state documents were missing from the file. We did have some documents reported missing to us from the recruitment files during our audit.

All recruitment case files should be itemised using a checklist against the status flowcharts to ensure adherence to process and to support self and internal auditing.

Accepted: As an interim measure the HR-HQ team has adopted a manual checklist for each file to ensure all necessary items are in place. This interim measure was successfully reviewed on 14 Aug 15 by the Director of Corporate Services. Further sampling will continue until the online system automates this process. The substantive solution will be achieved through the further development of the ‘Campaign Assurance & Summary Report’ including guidance to HR Teams and the introduction of Merit Order Summary reports to be completed by the Recruiting Department at each assessment stage. Both of which will be implemented by 30 September 2015. The Online Recruitment system is designed to guide and capture campaign process. This is existing practice for all internal and external recruitment in SPS and will be extended to capture Internal Temporary Appointments as

Medium



17

described at the management response to Recommendation 1. Timescale: 9 October 2015

Rec 4 There was no relationship declaration in any of the recruitment case files which we reviewed. We were informed that this was completed on an exception basis and when we asked to see if any declarations had been completed, we were informed that there was no record of any in any of the files either at HQ or at SPSC.

A recruitment declaration for panel members should be considered and added to the recruitment procedures to assist with full transparency of the process.

Accepted: A declaration form for assessors has been designed and will be included in the Recruitment Guidelines on our SharePoint site by 30 September 2015. Guidance for recruiting managers and assessors will be incorporated in the review of recruitment guidelines. Timescale: 30 September 2015

Medium

Rec 5 There is a requirement for a business case and relevant authority to be recorded against the file as stated in the recruitment guidelines.

A review of all case files should take place to ensure a relevant business case with signatory authorisation against budget is documented, valid and intact. Verbal agreements should always be supported by documentary evidence to ensure due process.

Accepted: A review of the recruitment campaigns for the previous 12 months has been undertaken. This has ensured that all files now hold the relevant documents. In addition, as per recommendation 3, a checklist has been adopted to ensure all documents are in place. Timescale: Completed

High

Rec 6 There is no laid down process or guidance for the recruitment of a temporary role and it is very much at the discretion of the manager.

The principles of fairness, openness and accountability should be applied and recorded in all our internal recruiting processes including temporary posts, development posts and secondments.

Accepted: A flow chart has been designed and will be circulated to advise line managers of the agreed process with regard to the appointment of temporary staff. Flow chart is complete and will be issued by 21st September 2015. Timescale: Completed As an interim measure the Executive Group are now reviewing all Agency Staff appointments. Timescale: Completed Temporary posts and development opportunities as well

High



18

as the engagement of agency workers will all be included in the revision of the SPS Recruitment Guidelines. Timescale: 31 March 2016.

Rec 7 There are clear, definitive periods of time for which records should be kept and remain accessible which is detailed in the recruitment guidance. However, there was a lack of evidence of compliance with these matters

The HR Function should introduce a document xxxxxxxxx policy and training for staff to ensure that only documents no longer required for the business are properly recorded xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

Accepted: A document xxxxxxxxxx policy is already in place, and the HR files were in the latter stages of being reviewed during the audit in February 2015. HR staff have been reminded of the requirements for document xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx and a Record Management Plan has been issued to HRBPs. ER&R will also issue reminders regarding the annual file review arrangements, and the SPS Information Security Manager has been asked to deliver a training session for relevant staff. Timescale: Complete

High

Rec 8 We reviewed xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxxx cxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx. We asked to see SPS guidance for this type of recruitment and were told that there was none.

If SPS is to fully adopt the xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx in addition to SPS xxxxxxx guidelines, HR should develop a formal guidance for staff to administer it. This should also be promoted and published in the HR Communications website.

Accepted: This will be incorporated into the review of recruitment guidelines. Time Scale: 31 March 2016. In the interim, updated advice on sxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx has been made available via SharePoint. Timescale: Complete

Medium

Rec 9 We requested to see a list of all roles recruited under the National Framework Agreement currently working within SPS Headquarters and we were not provided with a list immediately as it was not up to date. When we did receive the list we sampled 8 out of the

HR should create and maintain an up to date central registry for all National Framework Agreements.

Accepted: The HR Resourcing Team will be responsible for the contract management of Agency Workers. Further information will be developed on SharePoint, within a shared working area for HR practitioners, to provide more detailed guidance for managers. The Resourcing Team will

High



19

xx from the list we were presented with, which we later found was not completely accurate.

monitor the performance of these contracts and any temporary agency staff employed will be recorded on our HR systems. The Resourcing Team will also meet with service providers to discuss contractual issues on a bi-annual basis. The Employee Resourcing Manager has attended an engagement day with SG Procurement and Service Providers to discuss contractual arrangement and service levels. Once this is completed further development of the SharePoint site will be required. Timescale: 30 September 2015 Authority to and the budget for the recruitment of temporary staff sits with line managers, therefore historically HR have not always been aware of all appointments. In future all temporary agency appointments for roles within HQ will be monitored by HQ HR. And this will enable the HR HQ team to flag up when contracts are coming to an end. Timescale: Complete

Rec 10 There was no evidence in any of the Agency files to suggest that any control measures were in place at the time of the audit.

SPS should develop clear policy and guidance including reporting requirements control measures, line manager responsibilities and a monitoring plan covering key timelines, critical deliverables and performance reporting for all National Framework Agreements.

Accepted This will be captured in the revision of SPS recruitment Guidelines. The guidance will also incorporate advice on how to manage agency workers. Timescale: 31 March 2016 A pro forma is already in place for managers to use when requesting temporary staff under the framework contract. They are required to indicate the critical deliverables of the job as well as the knowledge skills and experience required of the post holder. Timescale: Complete In the interim guidance will be provided to all line managers & HR staff about the need to ensure proper management and monitoring of any agency staff.

High



20

Timescale: 21 September 2015

Rec 11 All such proposals should demonstrate that the spending proposal has clear and concise spending objectives.

All and any extensions to the agency framework agreements should be supported by clear evidence including support for funding.

Accepted: The HR HQ Team have been instructed to include the following documentation as part of the central registry: • Confirmation of budget • Confirmation of approval from the Exec Team • Confirmation of business case requirement, which should include details of what the individual is being assigned to deliver, e.g. project etc., including details of the need for extension. This will apply to all new extensions from 14th September 2015. Timescale: Complete

High

Rec 12 Confidence in the job evaluation scheme may be seriously undermined with the use of outdated software and the ten year old manual is overdue a review. In our opinion, the current SPS Job Evaluation process is being adhered to by staff as best they can but the software and benchmarking tools are not fit for purpose and HR should expedite the project to revise and review the current system or introduce a new one.

HR should revise and review the current system or introduce a new Job Evaluation system.

Accepted: In accepting this recommendation it is recognised that this will be an extensive piece of strategic improvement work which will require consultation. Timescale: It will be discussed as part of the SPS corporate planning cycle that begins in October 2015.

High

Rec 13 We were also informed that there is no formal training for job evaluation personnel, including software input or panel members who may also be participating in any appeals procedure. This is a weakness. There is an appeals mechanism and the JE Appeal panel is chaired by the Head of Human Resources and a TUS member, (the process is fully described in the manual.) We were informed that during the period xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx there

Job Evaluation training should be formalised in order to support those contributing to the process and to protect the organisation from risk.

Accepted: The current informal training that was available has been reviewed and formalised. Timescale: Complete There will also be communications with all those who partake in the JE process reminding them of the key principles.

High



21

have been no appeals recorded. The training has to date consisted of shadowing for staff and this includes the TUS/PLR representatives.

Timescale: Complete.

Rec 14 Oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx.

HR Function should ensure that all information forwarded to xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Accepted: Txxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx require authorisation from the Director. HR team have also been reminded nxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx. Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx x. Timescale: Complete

Medium

Rec 15 The HR Recruitment Guidelines SharePoint Website has numerous forms and policy documents to inform staff of policy and the existence of these forms to utilise when a vacancy is created, this includes some pre selection forms, the selection process itself and the post campaign information which includes pre-loaded templates is very useful and easy to navigate. There are some forms on the site which are out of date.

A review of all the documents held on the SharePoint site should be carried out to ensure that they are up to date and we would also suggest that they are version controlled.

Accepted: As an interim measure the Resourcing Team will review all recruitment forms and make any necessary amendments to ensure they comply with existing policy and practice. This will be completed by 30 September 2015. Timescale: 30 September 2015 This recommendation will also be taken forward as part of the HR Policy Review Project We have identified as a priority the need to ensure that access to these documents and the ability to modify them is properly managed through an appropriately permissioned version control process. Timescale: 31 March 2016

Medium

Rec 16 We found three forms on the HR SharePoint site which were called Recruitment Campaign Review and Assurance Form, Recruitment

The HR department should carry out a review of the current self-audit paperwork and in addition commit to a

Accepted: The Resourcing Team completed an on-site audit on 24 August 2015. In preparation for the audit all recruiting

Medium



22

Assurance Visits Outcomes Checklist and Recruitment Assurance Visits which were clearly for self-audit purposes. We found no evidence of their use and none of the cases we audited had been subject to any self-audit process. The content of the forms themselves is also in need of updating and review.

schedule of regular self-audits in order to provide secondary assurance that procedural guidance is being fully adhered to.

departments have completed a self-assessment of their campaigns for 14-15 reporting year. In addition the SPS Senior Resourcing Manager has completed an independent review of a sample of the campaigns. Feedback will inform future learning and be captured in guidance as part of the revision of recruitment guidelines. HRPBs will also be reminded to undertake this as part of their roles with the Head of HR Operations responsible for ensuring spot checks. The resourcing team will undertake a rolling programme of self-assessments. Timescale: Completed.



23

Annex A

AUDIT AND ASSURANCE REPORTING POLICY

This report is produced on an exception-reporting basis, from reviews conducted over the

areas of control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and

communication and monitoring internal control. Items of non-compliance with SPS

procedures are recorded, as are recommendations to make improvements to existing

processes. These are all reported as a record of audit findings. The level of risk attached to

individual issues represents the risk of non-compliance rather than the overall level of risk to

the organisation. Items that are clearly non-compliant with a stated SPS policy or Prison

Resource Library standard will generally be recorded as “high risk”. Management of the area

under review have the opportunity to respond to the report and outline management actions

proposed with time scales for action.

Audit Assurance Levels

In giving our assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of risk management systems,

controls and governance designed to achieve systems and business objectives, we have four

levels to define; full, substantial/ reasonable, limited and no assurance.

Our definition of each is as follows: -

Substantial assurance: Sound systems of internal control likely to achieve systems

objectives, operating effectively in practice;

Reasonable assurance: A basically sound system of internal control, but a few

weaknesses that may place achievement of some systems objectives at risk;

Limited assurance: Systems of internal control that are satisfactory in part, but

contain a number of weaknesses that are likely to undermine the achievement of

systems objectives and leave them vulnerable to material error/ abuse or threatening

risk; and



24

No Assurance: Unacceptable systems of internal control, containing fundamental

weaknesses creating serious doubts over the achievement of systems objectives and

leaving it vulnerable to significant error/ abuse.



25

Annex B AUDIT & ASSURANCE SCOPING MEMORANDUM

SPS Recruitment and Selection Procedures

1. Source of review:

Request from the Chief Executive to review the process of job evaluation and recruitment

and selection for Calton House Staff during the x xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

2. Audit objectives:

The purpose of this audit is to provide assurance to the Chief Executive, the Advisory Board

and other major stakeholders that the processes for promotion re-grading, vacancy filling,

the use of consultants, secondments and temporary recruited personnel and all job

evaluation processes for Headquarters Calton House have been soundly and correctly

followed for the period xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx. Assurance is also sought

that the recruitment and selection processes used during this period were robust, relevant,

and fair and that necessary approval and authorisation was granted at the appropriate

levels.

2.1 Control framework:

At a corporate level, SPS has policies and procedures in place which should ensure

compliance with sound recruitment and selection criteria. There should be clear

management accountability for all vacancy approvals with business cases compiled and

budgets approved. There should be a compelling job evaluation stating the job purpose, key

responsibilities and selection processes. There should also be a mechanism to provide

assurance that all applications have adhered to SPS policy and guidelines, the overarching

principles of the Civil Service Management Code and the Civil Service Commission

Recruitment Principles, current legislation and are evidenced with appropriate approval.

There are processes for monitoring security information and document retention.

2.2 Risk assessment:

Key risks are;

• Formal approval process for SPS recruitment and selection are not kept current. This

could lead to a lack of control in recruiting the right personnel, increasing the risk of damage

to SPS reputation.



26

• Industrial relations are harmed due to Management not following agreed policies,

procedures and guidelines for job evaluation, recruitment and selection.

• SPS recruitment and selection policies and processes do not adhere to current UK

and EU legislation. This could lead to financial loss and reputational damage to SPS.

• SPS job evaluation processes are not clearly defined; therefore they do not maintain

business focus and may not be appropriate in all cases, leading to failure to meet stated

organisational objectives.

• Failure to properly ensure that adequate and effective management controls are in

place could lead to unforeseen risks, disruption of business and breakdown of key financial

controls.

2.3 Control activities:

All SPS recruitment and selection applications at Headquarters are required to comply with

the SPS Recruitment & Selection procedures covering promotions and re-grading, vacancies,

consultants and temporary recruited personnel.

• Initiating the Vacancy Process

• Vacancy Proposals

• Recruitment Role/Responsibilities

• Selection Methods

• Assessment Centres

• Regrading Applications

• Job Evaluation processes

• Job Secondments

Security Information and Document Retention:

• There is a process of monitoring and retention of personnel documentation.

• There is a process for carrying out Disclosure checks.



27

• Deviation from process is reported on a timely basis to an appropriate level of

management to enable corrective action to be taken.

2.4 Information and communication:

SPS recruitment and selection should produce effective documents which support the

process fully. The process identifies and defines the roles of persons selected, recruited or

regraded. There is requirement that the process is supported by clear evidence which

details the authority to recruit and complies with a flowchart which maps the requirements

of the recruitment and selection process identified.

2.5 Monitoring internal control:

All recruitment and selection procedures should be monitored to ensure compliance with

the procedures described in the SPS Recruitment Guidelines.

3. Audit scope:

The audit will be carried out on SPS job evaluation and recruitment and selection processes

xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at Headquarters to provide assurance to the Chief

Executive; the Advisory Board and other major stakeholders.

The audit is conducted under the authority of the SPS Audit Charter signed by the Chief

Executive in September 2012. Paragraph 6 states: “AAU has free and unfettered access to all

information required to carry out its work and has full right of access to all SPS employees,

contractors, suppliers and external auditors for that purpose”.

Audit activities will be primarily focused on activities associated with the risks identified in

paragraph 2.2 but any other significant risks identified during the course of the audit

process will be followed up, investigated, and reported on.

4. Audit methodology:

Audit methodology is as undernoted;



28

• Review all key recruitment and selection documents, including job evaluation,

regrading applications and the appointment of consultants and temporary appointments for

the stated period.

• Interviews with key stakeholders and the team managers.

• Interview sample of staff, external and seconded resources, contractors, interims

and suppliers.

• Interview senior managers and HR personnel responsible for recruitment and

selection procedures.

• Examine job descriptions and role descriptors.

5. Key stakeholders:

• Chief Executive

• Director of Operations

• Director of Corporate Services

• Director of Strategy & Innovation

• Head of Human Resources

• Employee Resourcing Manager

• Job Evaluation and Project Manager

6. Time Allocated:

15 Days

7. Auditor: Adam Quin

Gordon Allan

Head of Audit & Assurance

xxx xxxx xxxxxxx

audit and assurance services audit report …hr+recruitment+report3555_1800.pdf · audit and...

Documents