Agenda item

Claire Portsmouth, Procurement and Contracts Analyst, introduced a report updating Members on the Temporary Agency Staff Contract with Matrix. Members were advised on the key points of the report, which included:

The total invoiced amount for the year to date (April to December 14) was £8,010,106, with the forecast for the full year therefore approximately £10.4m. Although this was more than the total spent last year with Matrix (£7,804,937) the figures for this year included ‘Off Contract’ staff spend that had been moved to Matrix. By moving this staff to Matrix, the figures were more transparent, and were easier to manage and report on.

Over the last 6 months, efforts had been made to secure agencies to provide services under ‘Professional/Executive’ category posts, which mainly included staff working in niche posts or those over level 9 where specialist skills may not be available form a general recruitment agency. This agency base would continue to grow over the length of the contract, and would assist in the council having fewer requests for ‘Off Contract’ spend. The trend of ‘Off Contract’ spend was showing a marked decline overall, with a 50% reduction in those staff outside of the Matrix contract vs. the previous financial year.

In addition, a re-procurement exercise was undertaken to decrease margin costs for staff that had been employed for more than 12 weeks. Figures for the period July to September showed 97 placements were re-procured, with savings totalling almost £19k so far.

The majority of agency staff were found within the Wellbeing directorate. It was recognised that a national shortage of qualified social workers was a challenge that Slough continued to face. The shortage meant that Slough was required to compete against other Local Authorities in order to secure the best qualified staff able to provide the desired quality of service. This had contributed to difficulty reconciling pay parity between agency and permanent full time staff, though permanent staff did now receive a market supplement to reconcile this.  Successful permanent recruitment in social care would help to alleviate these issues.

Matrix SCM had carried out a survey of Matrix users, however, responses were too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. In the future, the Council would take an active part in promoting such surveys in order to obtain a better response.

The Committee was concerned over the amount of money being spent on agency workers, and asked a number of questions, including:

Q. What was the difference in pay between an agency and non agency worker?

A. As an example, the per hour pay for a Children’s Social Worker agency worker was circa  £30 -35. This figure, extrapolated over a year, was broadly similar to the annual salary of a level 7 permanent employee, which included National Insurance and Pension contributions. However, the real cost was to service delivery and continuity when staff are regularly leaving, and new staff joining. Permanent staff would ensure greater service continuity, and therefore better outcomes for cases.

Q. What measures were being undertaken to reduce agency worker spend?

A. A recruitment campaign for social workers was currently underway, to employ full time social workers and therefore reduce the requirement for agency workers in these roles.

Q. What will be the impact of future staff restructures and savings plans?

A.  To avoid staff redundancies from future restructures a large number of vacancies were deliberately being held back from  permanent recruitment.  This would enable staff displaced through restructures to obtain other employment with the council and avoid redundancy

Q. What were the margins due to the Matrix contract?

A. Matrix mark-up was 8p per hour, on top of Agency fees. Matrix provided a way for the council to manage downward  the margin charged by agencies.  Matrix’s own forecast showed that savings would be made through the length of the contract, though an independent review of order fulfilment and margin rates would be  required to validate this.

Q. Why does Slough use non-qualified agency Social care staff ?

A. Roles dictate what staff are required. The majority of non-qualified staff being used were shift workers who were called in at short notice. In particular, those staff were used within residential centres to cover illnesses etc.

The Committee was concerned that, following previous meetings of the Employment & Appeals Committee, Officers had advised Members that spend on Agency workers would be reduced, however the figures showed that costs had increased. Members also raised concerns at the impact of temporary agency workers on the quality of service being delivered. Members requested that a further, detailed report be prepared for the next meeting, and that the Chief Executive and Senior Directors be invited to attend and present this report.

In addition, concerns were raised at the level of detail provided within reports about agency staff.  The Committee asked for greater context and detail on reports, particularly those reports dealing with figures comparing and contrasting spend within current and previous time periods.  A request was made for such detail to be included on all future reports.

Resolved -   (a)   That the report be noted.

(b)   That a further report on Temporary Agency Staff, Matrix, and Spend be brought to the next E&A Committee meeting. That the Chief Executive and Directors be invited to attend and present the report.

(c)   That future reports include further context and detail, particularly regarding monetary figures when comparing and contrasting different time periods.

(d)   That a more in depth survey of Matrix users be commissioned, with steps taken to ensure staff participation.