• 
• Home
• Letter from the First Civil Service Commissioner
• Our Role as Regulators
• Timeline
• Regulating Appointment on Merit
  • Chairing competitions for senior appointments
  • Summary of appointments
  • Remuneration
  • Compliance monitoring
  • Carrying out our responsibilities
  • Exceptions
  • Complaints
• Promoting and upholding Civil Service Values
• Our surveys
• Constitutional Renewal Bill
• Progress against Strategy
• Links with others
• Meet the Commissioners
• Appendices
• Feedback

Adjustments

As a result of these meetings the provisional risk rating was adjusted in eight cases.

In one case the risk rating moved upwards, from an initial rating of ‘medium’ to ‘high’. While the design of the departments’ systems and processes appeared robust, the actual operation of their recruitment processes was found to be variable. The main concerns were:

• some campaign files had very little documentation to demonstrate the basis on which decisions were taken and to allow verification that the process had been based on fair and open competition
• weak evidence of how the department managed short-term appointments made without fair and open competition
• no evidence of post-campaign checks having taken place.

In two cases the risk assessment increased from an initial rating of ‘low’ to ‘medium’. While they remained ‘low’ risk in most areas, significant shortfalls in particular areas were identified. For one of these organisations there were concerns about the adequacy of documentation in campaign files. For the other organisation there were concerns about how short-term appointments made without fair and open competition were managed.

Five organisations had their risk rating reduced from ‘medium’ to ‘low’ following the visit. These downward adjustments usually happened because more or better information was provided at visits than had been made available at the self-assessment stage.

return