Data on Officers vacancies
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.030700
I note you seek access to the following information:
Re-defined Request:
1. On 10 May I was advised I was successful in the paper sift for the Superintendents. The letter I received stated that the pass mark for the paper sift was 12.
So my question would be on the 12 May how many Superintendents posts was the organisation predicting it needed?
2. On 19 May I received an email with the following wording:
You may be aware that after the results of sift were released concerns were raised by some of our senior leaders about the outcome of the sift in some cases. As a result HR were asked to complete a detailed review of the overall design of the process and specifically the central sift. That has now been completed. The sift panel decisions have been reviewed and Clare Davies, Chief People and Resources Officer is assured of the consistency and quality of that sift. A meeting took place this week including the Assistant Commissioners and DAC Laurence Taylor, the Assessment Director to discuss the outcome and to carefully consider the next steps. As a result of a broader review of our workforce planning requirement and ongoing work on operating models linked to the turnaround plan we are now reasonably assuming we will require more Superintendents in the next 12 months than originally forecast. To cater for this the sift pass mark has been adjusted, from 12 to 11 (plus a minimum score of 2 against each question), meaning another 25 applicants will now move into the assessment stage of this process. This change does not impact on the sift outcome for you, as you successfully passed the sift.
So in relation to point 2 – on 19 May what was the new predicted requirement?
3. The additional 25 candidates – which are people – what is their breakdown regarding protected characteristics ie ethnicity, sex etc.
4. Now the results are out I would ask how many were put through the assessment centre as a pass and successful at the final assessment centre.
Original Request:
1. How many vacancies you originally predicted would need to be filled
2. How many you now predict to be required to be filled
3. The breakdown of the additional 25 in relation to protected characteristics.
Ultimately for the original officers who achieved the 12 pass mark this will cause obviously concerns over less vacancies being available.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information
Reason for decision
Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information - of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.
There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:
a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.
Having considered your request, I have found that the information requested within question 3 contains low counts which could possibly lead to the identification of individuals.
In this case, the release of the breakdown of requested protected characteristics ie ethnicity, sex etc data would be unexpected, unfair and distressing to them, on the basis that they would not reasonably expect this information to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. In this regard, the disclosure of this personal data would constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to privacy of the data subject(s) and be likely to cause unwarranted harm to them.
The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.
Q3 - The additional 25 candidates – which are people – what is their breakdown regarding protected characteristics ie ethnicity, sex etc.
• Section 40(2)&(3) (Personal Information)
The requested information contains personal information which is exempt from disclosure.
Disclosure
Q1 - On 10 May I was advised I was successful in the paper sift for the Superintendents. The letter I received stated that the pass mark for the paper sift was 12.
So my question would be on the 12th May how many Superintendents posts was the organisation predicting it needed?
35 – 40 posts.
Q2 - On 19 May I received an email with the following wording:
You may be aware that after the results of sift were released concerns were raised by some of our senior leaders about the outcome of the sift in some cases. As a result HR were asked to complete a detailed review of the overall design of the process and specifically the central sift. That has now been completed. The sift panel decisions have been reviewed and Clare Davies, Chief People and Resources Officer is assured of the consistency and quality of that sift. A meeting took place this week including the Assistant Commissioners and DAC Laurence Taylor, the Assessment Director to discuss the outcome and to carefully consider the next steps. As a result of a broader review of our workforce planning requirement and ongoing work on operating models linked to the turnaround plan we are now reasonably assuming we will require more Superintendents in the next 12 months than originally forecast. To cater for this the sift pass mark has been adjusted, from 12 to 11 (plus a minimum score of 2 against each question), meaning another 25 applicants will now move into the assessment stage of this process. This change does not impact on the sift outcome for you, as you successfully passed the sift.
So in relation to point 2 – on 19th May what was the new predicted requirement?
The new predicted requirement was 50.
Q4 - Now the results are out I would ask how many were put through the assessment centre as a pass and successful at the final assessment centre. 107 invited to AC, of which 100 attended.
45 candidates were successful at AC.