(a)

the trial appraisals, held in early 2010, provided a significant learning opportunity to ensure that the second round of appraisals were more effective;

(b)

having undertaken the trial appraisals staff and managers had gained a lot of confidence in the appraisal process and what was expected from them. This was demonstrated by the feedback provided by Grace Hughes from the Education Catering at a previous scrutiny meeting;

(c)

as a result of increased levels of confidence and a clearer understanding of expectations, the length of appraisals were reduced and the levels of staff completing an appraisal in the second round increased corporately by over four per cent up to 94.4 per cent;

(d)

due to the introduction of Manager on-line and E-forms during the appraisal process, the appraisal deadline was extended to the end of September to ensure that all managers received appropriate training on using the software;

(e)

all increments were applied with effect from 1 October 2010  to those staff who were due to receive an increment;

(f)

the level of staff completing an appraisal and the level of staff meeting or exceeding their expectations varied between departments. The most significant figures were –

·         

96 per cent of employees met or exceeded expectations;

·         

20 per cent of employees exceeded expectation in Chief Executive’s Directorate compared to only 7.8 per cent in Community Services;

·         

only 40.5 per cent of employees completed an appraisal in the Chief Executive’s Directorate;

(g)

the evaluation of the appraisals revealed that 77 per cent of employees felt that their appraisal was fair and accurate;

(h)

as part of a process of continuous improvement, the appraisal system is currently being reviewed with managers and trade unions.  Minimal changes are expected as to date feedback has been broadly positive. Any changes to the appraisal process would be communicated by 31 March 2011.

(i)

the HR department were working with the Chief Executive’s Directorate to understand the reason for the low level of completed appraisals;

(j)

reasons for appraisals not being completed were often due to maternity leave, long-term sick or staff still being in a probationary period;

(k)

23 per cent of respondents to the 2010 staff survey either disagreed, strongly disagreed or remained neutral to the statement “my appraisal was fair and accurate”.

(1)

the report is noted;

(2)

the Panel continue to support and take an interest in the development of staff and the results and impact of the appraisal and competency systems;

(3)

Eve Skuse, Head of Organisational Development would email to all Panel members the proportion of employees who were neutral or disagreed or strongly disagreed with the question I feel my appraisal was accurate and fair;

(4)

the Democratic Support Officer would disseminate a copy of the CIP 2 presentation to all members of the Panel.