REPORT NUMBER 1

 

Shadow Public Accounts Committee
 
 

 

 

 

 


THE MANAGEMENT OF SICKNESS ABSENCE WITHIN THE STATES OF JERSEY

 

 

 

 

 

Issued : December 2004

 

 

 

The Shadow Public Accounts Committee

 

 

The Shadow Public Accounts Committee was established by the States in January 2004.   The Committee’s remit is to investigate the value for money achieved by the States and other public bodies. 

 

            The current members of the Shadow Public Accounts Committee are:

 

Mr Tim Dunningham                          Chairman

Deputy Sarah Ferguson                     Shadow Chairman

Deputy James Reed  

Deputy Geoff Southern                      From 26 October 2004

Senator Ted Vibert

Connètable Dan Murphy                    From 19 October 2004

Deputy Jacqueline Huet                      From 24 November 2004

Advocate Alex Ohlsson

Mr Tony Grimes

Mr Peter Fergusson

Mr Cameron McPhail

 

As part of the Shadow Public Accounts Committee’s review into sickness absence within the States of Jersey a public hearing was held on 12th July 2004.  The witnesses who were questioned by the Committee were Mr Mick Pinel, Chief Executive of the States Human Resources Department, Mr Paul Nicolle, Director of Employee Development in the States Human Resources Department and Mr Kimon Wilkinson from the Change Team.

 

The Shadow Public Accounts Committee (SPAC) firmly believes that there should be clear lines of accountability and responsibility for the value for money and propriety of all States income and expenditure.  In conducting its reviews the SPAC expects to see:

 

Ø      Clear responsibilities of States employees to ensure that States policies are being implemented economically, efficiently and effectively;

Ø      Key decisions documented and appropriately authorised;

Ø      Business cases to support all major purchases;

Ø      Due regard to the principles of corporate governance which should be present within the public sector;

Ø      A willingness to continually improve the way in which things are done and a speedy and enthusiastic response to any recommendations the SPAC puts forward.

 

The SPAC undertakes thorough research for all areas it investigates.  Where appropriate, public or private hearings will be held with relevant States officials in order to ascertain facts and/or action taken or intended to be taken as a result of weaknesses we discover.  Findings and recommendations for change are discussed with the relevant States officials and draft reports are referred to the senior officers within the department(s) under review in order to agree the factual content of these.  Whilst committed to ensuring reports are accurate, the SPAC will stand by its recommendations and will not alter or dilute these as a result of comments received from Departments.  In cases of disagreement or where points of significance are brought to our attention following our investigation and/or public hearing, we will request comments from the relevant Department for inclusion in our report.

 

When we identify areas where financial savings can be made, the SPAC will expect these to be quantified, monitored and delivered by Departments.  The SPAC will conduct follow up investigations to ensure the savings have occurred and have resulted in a reduction to cash limits.

 

 

THE MANAGEMENT OF SICKNESS ABSENCE WITHIN THE STATES OF JERSEY

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

In 2003, States of Jersey employees took an average of 10.3 days off work due to sickness.  This equates to 4.56% of working days being lost due to sickness absence.  19% of the absences were uncertified.  The total salaries and wages paid to States employees in 2004 is budgeted at £241 million.  It is estimated that the annual cost to the States in relation to salaries and wages paid to those employees who are absent from work due to sickness is in the region of £10 million. 

 

The Shadow Public Accounts Committee (SPAC) has been encouraged by the comprehensive nature of the initiatives being implemented by the States Human Resources Department, many of which should have a positive impact on absence levels in the States of Jersey.  Significant progress has been made since the report issued by the (then) States Audit Commission back in March 2001 which looked at sickness levels within States Departments.  Not least of all, after many years of waiting, States Departments now have a computerised absence reporting system, One-Click.  However, the SPAC has subsequently been informed that the One-Click system, which has cost £374,000, was only intended to provide a short-term solution.  The States Human Resources Department, together with the Change Team for the States, is currently considering the adoption of a new, improved personnel management system.  In the light of this new information the SPAC intends to undertake a further review, at a later date, of the progress made in deciding to purchase any new system and the associated costs and benefits of this. 

 

There is a clear managing attendance policy in place which includes specific guidelines for both employees and managers.  However, the SPAC considers that there is now more work to do in terms of ensuring implementation of this policy and measuring whether the policy is having a positive effect in reducing absence levels throughout the States of Jersey.  Based on its recent research, the SPAC considers that the key recommendations for the States Human Resources Department are that they should:

 

                        In relation to absence measuring and monitoring:

 

1.        Expand the annual report submitted to the States by the Policy & Resources Committee to include the following further information relevant to sickness absence:

 

Ø              The proportion of certified and uncertified absence;

Ø              An analysis of certified sickness between long term and short term   

          absence;

Ø              Targets for reducing sickness absence and progress against these;

Ø              Summary of the annual report from BMI with regard to the 

          achievements of the Occupational Health Scheme.  (Paragraph 24)

 

2.        Submit six monthly reports on sickness absence management to the Corporate Management Board, one of the six monthly reports being the annual report which will be submitted to the States.   These reports should also be submitted to and reviewed by the Policy & Resources Committee.  (Paragraph 24)

 

3.        Estimate the total cost to the States each year as a result of sickness absence and include this estimate in the annual report to the States.  (Paragraph 25)

 

4.        Identify annual financial savings as a result of a reduction in sickness levels and report these to the Treasury so that they can be factored into the departmental budget setting processes.  (Paragraph 26)

 

The SPAC also recommends that the States Human Resources Department should:

 

                        In relation to the Absence Management Policy:

 

5.        Produce a one page user summary containing the main points from the Managing Attendance Policy.  (Paragraph 13)

 

6.        Undertake checks to ensure that the absence management policy is being complied with.   (Paragraph 15)

 

7.        Consider medical redeployment as one of the options for employees who are classed as unfit to work in their current job.  (Paragraph 16)

 

8.        Organise a meeting with representatives from the medical profession to discuss how the policy for sickness absence may be improved.  (Paragraph 17)

 

In relation to the One-Click absence reporting system:

 

9.        Hold meetings with the Heads of Human Resources in Departments to discuss with them their use of One-Click and to identify any Departments which could be making more use of the system.   In relation to any replacement or upgrading of the One-Click system, a detailed cost/benefit analysis should be carried out prior to a final decision being made. (Paragraph 18)

 

                                    In relation to absence measuring and monitoring:

 

10.      Review the absence studies which are currently available and determine which could be used as benchmarks.  (Paragraph 20)

 

11.      Set appropriate targets for Departments to achieve with regard to sickness levels and benchmark actual sickness levels with other organisations.  As well as comparing sickness levels in Jersey with those in the UK, it is recommended that attempts are made to make comparisons with the States of Guernsey.  In particular there appear to be one or two “hot spot” departments that seem to have more serious absence problems and it is recommended that the States Human Resources Department should take action to address these immediately.  It is also recommended that the Human Resources staff within departments should review sickness absence levels and associated targets on a quarterly basis with the senior managers within their departments.  (Paragraph 20)

 

12.      Monitor the incidence of uncertified sickness in all States Departments.  In relation to Departments with uncertified sickness above average, the States Human Resources Department should ascertain what steps those Departments are taking to reduce their levels of uncertified sickness.  (Paragraph 21)

 

13.      To consider the merits and practicality of collating statistics on the number of cases of excessive sickness which result in disciplinary action against the employee.  The Committee also recommends that it would be useful to try and establish whether absence levels are correlated with departmental morale and staff turn-over rates.  (Paragraph 22)

 

14.      Review the allocation of ailments/medical conditions to the miscellaneous category on the One-Click system and give further consideration to the mandatory categories over which sickness absence should be analysed.  (Paragraph 23)

 

                      In relation to Return to Work Interviews:

 

15.      Issue further guidance to Departments on the use of Return to Work Interviews.  In particular Departments should be reminded of the importance of recording the results of the interview, even if this was an informal discussion.  It is recommended that absence reporting forms used by Departments should include provision for recording that the interview has been held, with space for the manager to summarise any points arising from the discussion.  (Paragraph 32)

 

                      In relation to the Occupational Health Service:

 

16.      Ensure that BMI (the States Occupational Health provider) produce a meaningful annual report on the work they undertake for the States.  This report should provide clear information regarding the value of the Occupational Health Service in the past year and how the service has assisted in reducing sickness levels in the States of Jersey.  (Paragraph 34)

 

 

Following the public hearing on sickness absence which was held on 12th July 2004, the States Human Resources Department produced an action plan of tasks they intended to undertake to address the issues raised by the SPAC.  This Action Plan is included at Appendix A and the SPAC is pleased to note that all of the recommendations made in this report are included in the Department’s Action Plan.  The SPAC will monitor progress against the Action Plan to ensure that all the recommendations are implemented.  It is intended that a further public hearing to review progress on managing sickness absence within the States of Jersey will be held.  The SPAC intends to monitor the progress in implementing the recommendations made in all of its reports.  The SPAC will also ensure that Departments clearly identify the savings which are made as a result of the SPAC’s recommendations.  The savings resulting from the SPAC’s recommendations will be monitored and reported in the Committee’s annual report.   

 

The SPAC is aware that as part of the Visioning project, it is intended to integrate the Human Resources function across the States.  We consider that this will provide an ideal opportunity to streamline the processes and procedures in relation to sickness absence management to ensure that all Departments are approaching this important subject in a consistent manner and that the corporate policies are being adhered to.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.    The effective management of sickness absence is vital within any organisation.  When an employee is absent from work, there is an associated cost to the States of Jersey.  This may be a direct cost in the form of overtime payments to other staff who need to cover for the absence.  There is also the cost of the employee’s salary/wage whilst they are absent from work with no corresponding value or output being derived from this.  Ultimately high sickness absence by employees will have a consequential impact on the level and quality of service provided to the States of Jersey’s customers.  Equally. prolonged or regular absences by employees can also have an adverse affect on their colleagues in terms of increasing stress and reducing job satisfaction. 

 

2.   In March 2001 the (then) States Audit Commission issued a report on sickness levels within the States of Jersey.  At that time it was not possible to identify the total level of sickness across States Departments.  The report identified many inconsistencies between Departments in the way sickness information was recorded and sickness absence monitored and managed.  The report stated:

 

Ø      Although there is a policy for managing sickness absence, it is written in language more akin to a guideline rather than as a corporate requirement;

 

Ø      Data is not collected in a standard format across the public sector (and sometimes not within departments) i.e. there is no corporate form for recording sickness absence which would include the core data required;

 

Ø      Although the policy highlights uncertified short term sickness as a possible area for concern, departments are not required to produce information vis-à-vis certificated and uncertificated absence;

 

Ø      There is no corporate requirement for monitoring sickness at departmental or corporate level;

 

Ø      There is a lack of a suitable IT system to record and collate data and produce management reports;

 

Ø      There is no monitoring of sickness levels or trends by the States Human Resources (HR) Department.

 

3.    The report stated:

 

“We consider that it is the responsibility of Chief Officers to ensure that sickness absence is managed and monitored within their respective departments.  We also consider that it is the role of the Human Resources Department to set standards and ensure that those standards are being met by monitoring information at a corporate level and by following up possible areas of concern.”

 

4.    The report recommended that:

 

i.      The Managing Absence Policy should include a corporate policy on the format, collation and reporting of sickness absence;

 

ii.         All departments should be required to comply with the policy;

 

iii.        The Human Resources Department should monitor all sickness absence at a corporate level;

 

iv.       The Occupational Health Service should be provided with information on sickness absence in each department;

 

v.         The Occupational Health Service should be required to report on sickness levels and trends in its annual report;

 

vi.       If appropriate, consideration should be given to providing departments with the PSD in-house absence monitoring system until such time as the corporate system is available.

 

5.    The Shadow Public Accounts Committee (SPAC) has reviewed the progress in implementing the recommendations made by the States Audit Commission in 2001.  In particular the SPAC decided to:

 

i.   Review absence levels in States Departments;

 

ii.   Select a sample of Departments and ascertain:

 

       (a)   the procedures adopted by the Department to record and monitor                     sickness absence.

 

       (b)   whether the Department is applying the absence management                             procedures laid down by the States Human Resources Department.

 

       (c)   whether the Department sets targets with regard to sickness absence.

 

      

iii.  Estimate the cost to the States in 2003 as a result of days lost due to sickness      

    absence.

 

iv.  Review the role of the States Human Resources Department in monitoring and reducing sickness levels across the States.

 

v.  Compare sickness levels in the States of Jersey to those in other organisations.

 

 

6.    As part of the SPAC’s review a public hearing on sickness levels in the States of Jersey was held on 12th July 2004.  Mick Pinel, Head of the States Human Resources Department and his colleagues Paul Nicolle, Employee Development Director and Kimon Wilkinson from the Change Team, attended the hearing to answer questions posed by the SPAC.  Prior to the hearing the States Human Resources Department provided SPAC with various reports from the One-Click system detailing sickness absence in States Departments in 2003.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

7.    In 2003 States employees[1] took a total of 45,117 days off work due to sickness.  This equates to an average of 10.3 days per States employee.  Figure 1 shows the percentage of working days lost through sickness in each States Department in 2003:

 

Figure 1   Percentage sickness absence by Department in 2002 and 2003

 

Department

2002 % sickness absence

2003 % sickness absence

Change

States Human Resources

6.75

3.63

-3.12

Lieutenant Governor

3.70

1.31

-2.39

Agriculture & Fisheries

6.69

4.59

-2.10

Impots

6.55

4.46

-2.09

Harbours

5.12

3.22

-1.90

Economic Development

2.78

1.38

-1.40

Probation

7.33

6.00

-1.33

Public Services

6.15

5.25

-0.90

Home Affairs

3.54

3.03

-0.51

Driver Vehicle Standards

4.72

4.32

-0.40

Planning & Environment

2.75

2.43

-0.32

Police

4.89