June 2012.pdf - RCSA

Association news
Adherence to best practice in
service delivery is improving
The Service Delivery Rating
has seen significant and
sustained improvement
over the past five years. This
suggests more agencies are
measuring-up better against
recruitment industry best
practice and statutory
compliance.
The Service Delivery Rating has been
measured on certified RCSA Members
since 2004. The rating is a score that can be
assessed when agencies are audited in the
RCSA Service Delivery Standard (RCSA SDS).
The rating takes into account the
performance of each agency against a range
of measures including recruitment industry
best practice and statutory compliance.
The maximum rating is 10.0, the minimum
acceptable rating is 5.0. A rating of less than
5.0 can be and sometimes is assessed, but
such results are not included here.
Current Ratings Profile
The rating of all agencies currently certified
in the RCSA SDS is shown in Table 1. Of all
agencies certified, 22 per cent have scored
between 5.0 and 5.9. These are mainly the
agencies which have been through their first
audit and have just become certified in the
RCSA SDS. Agencies usually start at this level
and progress upwards, although there is one
agency which achieved a rating of over 7.0
in their initial certification.
Thirty-two per cent of agencies have scored
between 6.0 and 6.9, and a further 32 per
cent between 7.0 and 7.9. These are mainly
agencies which have been through the initial
certification and have undertaken one or more
subsequent surveillance audits. At each audit
they are presented with a list of suggestions
for improvement, which, if implemented
effectively, assist them to improve their
service delivery and of course their rating.
Fourteen per cent of agencies have scored
between 8.0 and 8.9. In all cases these are
agencies which have been certified in the
standard for a number of years – at least
three, but more often five or more years.
While we have seen a significant increase
in the ratings since these measures have been
collected we have not yet seen an agency
assessed at more than 9.0. However we are
hoping that this will happen in the next few
years.
How does the rating work
The RCSA SDS was developed by the RCSA
in 2004 and 2005. Based on international
standards for quality management, it also set
a benchmark for recruitment excellence by
including recruitment specific items such as
checking a candidate’s right to work and
complying with candidate privacy requirements.
Over the years the assessment process has
been updated to reflect emerging best
practice around the use of social media,
workplace safety management, employee and
contractor agreements, and management of
candidate “floating” (reverse marketing).
The RCSA SDS standard consists of eight
broad areas which are then split into 47
sections such as employment screening,
placement management and feedback
collection. Each section is further detailed
in over six hundred individual items.
The rating is assessed by an independent
auditor during an onsite audit over one or
more days. Findings are captured in a report
for the agency, and the rating is recorded in
our database. Agencies that meet
requirements are certified in the standard.
Agencies that have been audited and have
received a good rating can be proud and
confident that they meet industry best
practice, comply with key legislative
commitments, and have established
strong service delivery systems.
Does size matter
One of the questions we have had is what
drives good service delivery It is easy to
assume that the bigger businesses have access
to more resources and can therefore put more
effort into meeting industry best practice. In
fact, size seems to have nothing to do with it.
Table 2 shows a wide spread of average
and maximum ratings for different sized
agencies, based on the number of staff. The
highest average rating is indeed for a larger
agency (rating 7.6 for G 66-85 staff), but the
maximum rating is for E 26-45 staff (rating
8.7), and the smallest businesses (A 1-5 staff)
often outperform the bigger businesses.
Then we have asked, (Table 3) if it is not size,
then perhaps it is the area of specialisation
that makes a difference For example, one
can assume that an agency placing medical
doctors, where the risk of a “bad” placement
could be very serious, might implement best
practice more readily than an agency placing
short term blue collar staff, where the
consequences of a bad placements may
not be so severe.
But again, specialisation seems to have
nothing to do with it. Out of the four main
34
RCSA JOURNAL