Supplementary evidence from Cafcass following
the evidence session on 22 March 2011 (FC 64)
1. What are the relative costs of directly
employed FCA's, self employed FCA's and agency FCA's? If you could
provide figures per hour that would be particularly useful
| Average FCA Agency Rate 2010-11
| £38.93 |
| Average FCA salaried (hours exclude London Weighting, Annual Leave & Bank Holidays)
| £30.34 |
| SEC rates per hour | £30.00 (£33 London)
|
2. The PAC heard that standards for taking children into
care in public law vary by local authority. Does Cafcass apply
national standards when making its recommendations? How is this
monitored?
Cafcass children's guardians fulfil their functions in a way that
is designed to assist the judiciary to meet the responsibilities
placed on them by the Children Act 1989. The judiciary are eager
to receive and to consider children's guardians' advice and recommendations
about how best to safeguard and promote children's welfare, in
particular, in accordance with the elements of the "welfare
checklist" (section 1(3) Children Act 1989). The other key
document that informs and guides the practice of children's guardians
during their work on public law care cases is the relevant sections
of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991. The work of children's guardians
in subject to regular supervision by their Service Managers and,
in addition, there is a quality assurance process that is applied
to draft court reports.
3. Do standards for no contact or supervised contact in
private law cases vary nationally?
Cafcass does not gather information about variations in the basis
on which the courts make orders of "no contact". The
use of supervised (ie recorded and observed) contact generally
takes place during the course of ongoing proceedings. It is relatively
unusual for supervised contact arrangements to remain in place
after proceedings are concluded. This is because supervised contact
services are a costly and relatively scarce resource, the main
use of which is to assist in enabling contact arrangements to
resume, when they are not in place at the point where proceedings
are commenced. Cafcass distributes its budget for child contact
services on the basis of the size of local areas' child populations.
The number of supervised contact "units of service"
in 2010-11 is 1,685. The services commissioned by Cafcass are
based on common standards and are specified in Cafcass' procurement
arrangements.
4. In oral evidence you mention work that Cafcass has done
to benchmark the proportion of frontline and non-frontline staff.
Could you let us have any more information about this? Which organisations
did you compare Cafcass with? And what were their figures?
I attach the results of the Department for Education's "benchmarking"
exercise, to which Anthony Douglas referred in his evidence to
the Committee, when he said "When we have benchmarked
all of our services—finance, HR and IT—we are about
the lowest in the respective family for all but our IT service."
April 2011
Annex A
SUMMARY DFE "FAMILY" COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE
IN THE 2009-10 BENCHMARKING EXERCISE
Please note that the scores for last year's benchmarking exercise
are shown in maroon on the graphs, including the mean, median
and quartile figures published as part of Smarter Government in
December 2009.Where the mean, median and quartile figures are
not displayed, this is a new indicator for this year's exercise.
There are some recognised anomalies within definitions for some
functions; however, there has been a moderation process over the
past few weeks, led by Heads of Government Professions (HOGP).
Treasury fully expected data to change during this period. DfE
was in a good position to respond to this as Corporate Finance
ran workshops which were very well attended by Arms Length Bodies
and DfE staff responsible for completion of the return. We were
able to identify and flag with Treasury and HOGP any difficulties
we were having with the definitions and the process.
1.0 FINANCE
1.1 Percentage Cost of the Finance Function
Fig 1 shows the cost of the finance function as a percentage of
organisational running costs (expenditure).
DfE is performing considerably better than the 1% target set for
the public sector.
DfE has the lowest percentage cost of function with 0.36% and
PfS the highest at 1.95%. The average is 1.10%. Both DfE and TDA
have seen a substantial fall in the percentage cost since 2008-09.
This is mainly due to an increase in the organisational running
costs due to changes in definitions.
PfS has seen an increase in percentage cost of function with absolute
costs increasing from £222,000 in 2008-09 to over £424,000
in 2009-10. However, PfS has reduced their reporting cycle time
from 30 days to six days.
1.2 Cost of Finance Per Head
Fig 2 shows the cost of the finance function per (total) organisational
employees.
TDA has the highest cost per function at £3,871 with Cafcass
the lowest at £775. The average is £2,257. There were
no 2008-09 comparisons readily available, so the 2008-09 base
data has been used to calculate an equivalent cost of finance
per head.
The DfE is has the second lowest cost of finance per head with
£1,388.
1.3 Reporting Cycle
Fig 3 shows the time in working days from period end closure to
the preparation of routine financial reports to all budget managers
and overseeing boards and committees.
The shortest reporting time is six days which is achieved by a
number of organisations (NCSL, PfS, Cafcass and Becta). The longest
reporting time is nine days, achieved by DfE, QCDA and Ofsted.
The average reporting time is seven days.
The DfE reporting cycle for 2009-10 is one day longer than the
national average in 2008-09. This does not reflect the transition
to shared services.
The average performance of the family is better than the public
sector average of 8 days in 2008-09.
1.4 Percentage of Professionally Qualified Finance Staff
Fig 4 shows the percentage of staff (FTE) working in the finance
function with a professionally recognised financial qualification.
PfS has the highest level of qualified finance staff with 64%
and Cafcass the lowest with 28%. The average for the DfE family
is 43%.
DfE is ranked 8th out of the nine DfE respondents with 31% of
finance staff being qualified. This is an increase from 26% in
2008-09. The department has a formal in house accountant training
programme with numerous passed finalists and part qualified accountants
taking part. In addition there are a number of qualified accountants
embedded within the department and numerous accounting technicians
that are not included within these figures.
2.0 HUMAN RESOURCES
2.1 Percentage Cost of the HR Function
Fig 5 shows the cost of the HR function as a percentage of organisational
running costs (expenditure).
CWDC has the lowest percentage cost of HR function with 0.3% whilst
Becta has the highest with 1.8%. The average for the DfE family
is 1%.
The average percentage cost of the HR function across the pubic
sector in 2008-09 was 1.9% with the top 25% of organisations having
an average percentage cost of HR of 1.2%.
The DfE is ranked 4th out of the nine DfE respondents
with HR costs representing 0.7% of total organisational running
costs. The total cost of HR has fallen by approximately £1.4
million since 2008-09 due to the re organisation of the function.
2.2 Cost of HR per Head
Fig 6 shows the cost of the HR function per organisational employee.
PfS has the lowest cost of HR per head at £672 with Becta
highest at £3,743. The average cost for the DfE family is
£2,038. As this indicator was not published last year, there
are no 2008-09 cross government figures available for comparison.
The DfE is ranked 7th out of the nine DfE respondents with a HR
cost per FTE of £2,698. However as the number of HR staff
has fallen from 88 to 59 in 2009-10 and the full benefits of staff
reduction will not be seen until 2010-11.
2.3 Ratio of Employees (FTE) to HR staff
Fig 7 shows the ratio of full time equivalent employees to HR
staff, expressed as "number of FTE employees to 1 HR member
of staff".
PfS has the highest ratio of FTE to HR staff with 70.2 : 1 and
QCDA the lowest with 23.4 : 1. The average for the DfE family
in 2009-10 is 44.7 : 1.
DfE is ranked 5th out of the nine DfE respondents with a ratio
of 44.8 staff per member of HR. This is based on the average number
of HR staff across the year, which was reduced from 88 in 2008-09
to 59 in 2009-10. The department is also actively participating
in the Next Generation HR programme run by Cabinet Office.
The average ratio of FTE to HR staff across the public sector
in 2008-09 was 50.2 : 1 with the top 25% of the public sector
averaged 56.6 : 1.
2.4 Average Working Days Lost to Sickness (AWDL)
Fig 8 shows the average working days per employee (FTE) lost through
sickness absence.
QCDA has the lowest average working days lost though sickness
per employee (AWDL) with three days and Cafcass the highest at
11 days.
DfE is ranked 6th out of the nine DfE respondents with 6.6 working
days lost in 2009-10, which represents a fall of 16.5% from 7.9
days in 2008-09.
The average AWDL for the public sector in 2008-09 was 7.9 days
with the best performers averaging at 5.3 days.
2.5 Employee Experience of Performance Management
This measure shows the percentage of DfE staff that provided a
positive response on the management of performance within DfE.
The DfE achieved a 77% positive response in 2009-10.
These are the first set of results of the cross government survey.
The pilot survey carried out last year is not fully comparable
due to changes in the survey questions.
This data is collected by the annual staff survey run by Cabinet
Office and only applies to Civil Servants. ALBs did not complete
the survey.
2.6 Employee Experience of Learning & Career Development
This measure shows the percentage of DfE staff that had a positive
experience of Learning and Career Development within DfE. The
DfE achieved a 56% positive response in 2009-10.
These are the first set of results of the cross government survey.
The pilot survey carried out last year is not fully comparable
due to changes in the survey questions.
This data is collected by the annual staff survey run by Cabinet
Office and only applies to Civil Servants. ALBs did not complete
the survey.
2.7 Employee Experience of Positive Working Environment
This measure shows the percentage of DfE staff that provided a
positive response on the working environment within DfE. The DfE
achieved a 58% positive response in 2009-10.
These are the first set of results of the cross government survey.
The pilot survey carried out last year is not fully comparable
due to changes in the survey questions.
This data is collected by the annual staff survey run by Cabinet
Office and only applies to Civil Servants. ALBs did not complete
the survey.
3.0 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
3.1 Percentage Cost of Information Technology
Fig 9 shows the cost of the IT function as a percentage of organisational
running costs (expenditure).
This is calculated using Total "run and maintain" spend
to provide a more comparable figure—ie excluding the often
"one off" costs of transformation projects.
DfE has the lowest percentage cost of IT with 0.3% and Ofsted
the highest at 5.8%. The average cost of the DfE family is 3.4%.
The average percentage of IT in the public sector for 2008-09
was 6.1% with the top 25% of the public sector averaged 2.7%.
3.2 Overall stakeholder perspective
Fig 10 shows an "average score" between 1 (low) and
5 (high) of stakeholder perspectives of IT. Stakeholder groups
are:
1. Board members.
2. Senior management.
3. Front line users of IT.
Where reported, all the DfE family stakeholder perspectives have
either stayed the same or increased.
4.0 PROCUREMENT
4.1 Percentage Cost of Procurement
Fig 11 shows the cost of the procurement function as a percentage
of organisational running costs (expenditure).
Cafcass has the lowest percentage cost of procurement with 0.1%
and NCSL the highest at 0.8%. The average for the DfE family is
0.4%.
DfE is ranked 4th out of the nine DfE respondents with the cost
of procurements representing 0.3% of total organisational running
costs.
The average percentage cost of procurement for the public sector
in 2008-09 was 0.4% with the top 25% of the public sector averaged
0.1%.
4.2 Procurement Function Costs as a Percentage of Total
Procured Spend
Fig 12 shows the cost of the procurement function as a percentage
of total third party spend.
CWDC has the lowest percentage with 0.2% and Ofsted the highest
at 0.8%. The average is 0.5%.
DfE is ranked 6th out of the nine DfE respondents with procurement
cost representing 0.7% of total procurement spend. The department
has by far the largest and most complex procurement spend of the
DfE family.
There are no 2008-09 figures for comparison.
4.3 Percentage Third Party Spend Channelled to SMEs
Fig 13 shows the proportion of third party spend auditably channelled
to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).
This is a new and difficult measure to achieve accurately, particularly
where organisations are required to determine where those in their
delivery chain have used SMEs.
4.4 Percentage of Qualified Procurement Staff
Fig 14 shows the professionally qualified procurement employees
(FTEs) as a percentage of total procurement employees.
Cafcass has the highest percentage of qualified procurement staff
at 100% and QCDA the lowest at 31.3%. The average for the DfE
family is 61.2%.
DfE is ranked 2nd out of the nine DfE respondents with 90% of
procurement staff being qualified.
The average percentage of qualified procurement staff in 2008-09
for the public sector was 48.3% with the top 25% of the public
sector averaged 70%.
5.0 ESTATES
5.1 Estate Cost per FTE
Fig 15 shows the total average property cost per employee FTE.
Becta has the lowest estate cost per FTE at £2,995 and QCDA
the highest at £15,626. The average for the DfE family is
£7,448. TDA is particularly high due to dual running during
the transfer of operations to Manchester.
DfE is ranked 5th lowest estate costs per FTE and below the average
cost for the DfE family. However this does not include the benefits
of the move from Moorfoot or other work under way in the estates
function. The increase is partially due to the reduction in staff
numbers, with benefits of floor space reduction being visible
in next year's exercise.
The average estate cost per FTE in 2008-09 across the public sector
was £5,820 with the top 25% averaging £3,601.
5.2 Area per FTE
Fig. 16 shows the net internal area per employee (m2/FTE).
NCSL has the lowest space per FTE at 8.9 m2 and QCDA
the highest at 27 m2. The average for the DfE family
is 14.2 m2.
DfE is ranked 6th out the 9 DfE respondents with 14.4 m2 per FTE,
which is slightly higher than the average for the DfE family.
The departments move from Moorfoot to St Pauls in Sheffield will
reduce the DfE total floor space by approximately 20,000 m2. The
department is also actively marketing the sub let of parts of
Castle View House in Runcorn.
The average space per FTE in 2008-09 across the public sector
was 19.1 m2 while the top 25% averaged 11.6 m2.
5.3 Cost per Square Metre
Fig 17 shows cost (£) per square metre of net internal area.
Becta has the lowest cost per square metre with £275 per
m2 whilst TDA has the highest with £803 per m2.
However TDA `is incurring the cost of two premises due to dual
running during the transfer of operations from London to Manchester.
NCSL has next highest cost per square metre with £657 per
m2.
DfE is ranked 3rd out of the nine DfE respondents with £406
per square metre.
The average cost per square metre in 2008-09 across the public
sector was £389 per m2 while the top 25% averaged
£238 per m2.
5.4 Property: Corporate Governance
This measure assesses if and how much property management is part
of the Corporate Governance of the organisation.
DfE scored 3.33 out of 5.
This was not reported last year.
5.5 Property: Capacity and Capability
This measure assesses the expertise and resources that are available
for the management of property within the organisation.
DfE scored 4.00 out of 5.
This was not reported last year.
5.6 Property: Policies and Standards
This measure assesses if the organisation has appropriate policies
for managing property and to what extent they are communicated/adopted
within the organisation.
DfE scored 4.00 out of 5.00
This was not reported last year.
5.7 Property: Data and Management Information Systems
This measure assesses what systems and information the organisation
has on its properties and the facilities management function.
DfE scored 2.50 out of 5.00
This was not reported last year.
5.8 Property: Performance Management Review and Audit
This measure assesses the organisation's ability to review its
performance in managing its property.
DfE scored 3.33 out of 5.
This was not reported last year.
6.0 COMMUNICATIONS
The Communications function was not included in the 2008-09 benchmarking
exercise, so no comparisons are available.
6.1 Percentage Cost of Communications
Fig. 18 shows the total cost of all communication (central communication
function and embedded communications) by the organisation in the
financial year, as a percentage of organisational running cost
(expenditure).
Cafcass has the lowest percentage cost of communications at 0.7%
and TDA the highest at 21.6%. The average for the DfE family is
7.8%.
DfE is ranked 6th out of the nine respondents with Communication
costs representing 8.1% of total organisational running costs.
This is slightly above the average for the department's family.
6.2 Proportion of All Staff Working on Communications
Fig 19 shows the Communication staff (central function and embedded)
as a percentage of all departmental staff.
QCDA has the highest percentage of staff working on communications
with 11.3% whilst CAFCASS has the lowest with 0.2%. The average
for the DfE family is 6.0%.
DfE is ranked 4th out of the nine DfE respondents with 4.6% of
all staff working on communications.
6.3 Proportion of Professional Communicators
Fig 20 shows the professional communicators (central function
and embedded) as a percentage of all communicators.
Communicators are people who carry out communications roles in
the central communication function or policy teams. Support staff
are excluded, because they are not carrying out communication
activity directly.
Professional communicators were recruited against communication
competencies or hold a professional communication qualification.
PfS, Cafcass and Ofsted have the highest percentage of qualified
communicators with 100%. Becta has the lowest with 35.6%
DfE is ranked 4th highest in number of professional communicators,
with 96% of all communicators being classed as professional communicators.
The number of staff is important when comparing the percentages.
CAFCASS has four staff working on communications and PfS has seven
compared to Becta which has 23.
6.4 Communications Alignment to Business Objectives
Fig 21 shows whether the organisations' communication strategy
and activity is explicitly linked to organisational business objectives
(in central government, Public Service Agreements and Departmental
Strategic Objectives).
This demonstrates that all members of the DfE Family have stated
that their communication strategy and activity is explicitly linked
to organisational business objectives.
7.0 LEGAL
The Legal function was not included in the 2008-09 benchmarking
exercise, so no comparisons are available.
7.1 Percentage Cost of Legal Services
Fig 22 shows the cost of the all legal services as a percentage
of organisational running costs (expenditure).
Only those organisations with a separate legal team are required
to report on this measure, with six out of nine within the DfE
family responding.
NCSL and Ofsted have the lowest percentage cost of function at
0.4% and QCDA the highest at 1.5%. The average for the DfE family
is 0.8%.
DfE is ranked 3rd lowest in legal costs with legal costs representing
0.6% of the department's total organisational running costs.
7.2 Legal percentage spend on technical work (not admin)
Fig 23 shows the percentage of legal costs spend on "technical"
work (as opposed to support/admin).
Only those organisations with a separate legal team are required
to report on this measure, with six out of nine responding.
NCSL and Becta spend 100% of their legal costs on technical work
whilst CAFCASS is at 89.9%. DfE ranks 5th out the 6 DfE respondents
with 95.8% of legal costs being spent on technical work.
8.0 KNOWLEDGE AND
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
The KIM function was not included in the 2008-09 benchmarking
exercise, so no comparisons are available. CWDC and QCDA do not
have a KIM function so there are no indicators for them.
8.1 Percentage Cost of KIM
Fig 24 shows the cost of Knowledge and Information Management
Function as a percentage of Overall Expenditure.
Becta and PfS have the lowest percentage cost of Knowledge Management
with 0.06% and 0.13% respectively. All other organisations report
a percentage cost of approximately 0.2%.
8.2 Quality: % FOI/EIR requests addressed "in time"
Fig 25 shows a measure of the service quality in addressing public
requests for data—in this case the timeliness of replies.
Only five out of the nine organisations have reported on this
measure, with the remaining stating that they do not have a discreet
KIM function. NCSL has the best response to FOI/EOI with 100%
being met within the required timescales.
DfE has the lowest response rate at 83%. This situation is being
addressed by the Business Rights Team within CIOG.
8.3 Quality: Public perception of available data
Fig 26 shows a measure of the public perception of the data that
the department publishes.
| 
