NORTHERN IRELAND EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARDS' BUILDING CLEANING SERVICE - FUNDAMENTAL SERVICE REVIEW - CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT UNIT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FUNDAMENTAL SERVICE REVIEW
NORTHERN IRELAND
EDUCATION AND
LIBRARY BOARDS’
BUILDING CLEANING
SERVICE
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT UNIT
‘A clean sweep for education’
DECEMBER 2007FOREWORD I always used to officiate at school prize days in assembly halls adorned with golden honours lists of past pupils, who had achieved wonderful things. After due congratulations the slant of my speech was to intimate 'it's alright for you clever lot, but what is the use of a brain surgeon without nurses and cleaning staff to support them or secretaries to do the spade work for a judge?’ My first jobs were as a dustbin man and then as an apprentice plumber. It was at this time that the importance of the unassuming support workers came home to roost and that is why I am now so proud to be the President of British Institute of Cleaning Science and pleased to officiate at the annual CLEANEST GREENEST SCHOOL COMPETITION awards. The most satisfying aspect of life is being part of a team that enables society to work, and cleanliness in the home, school and workplace is of extreme importance. What is more, cleaning is so essential that it can be and should be interwoven in the school curriculum. It is history, science and social science with not only the rude bits left in but how the rude bits were taken out. Take a look at art and literature down the ages and it is there to see and read. Furthermore, with rural science coming back into the syllabus and the increased promotion of locally produced food cutting back on food miles, I can only guess what’s around the corner. I am in favour of any move that raises the profile of cleaning in schools and fully support this review and its objectives of improving standards. David Bellamy (Professor David Bellamy is the President of BICS and promotes cleanliness in education through his Environmental Cleanliness Awards, which encourage primary school children to become involved in making the environment a cleaner, healthier, more inviting and safer place.) Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 2
CONTENTS
Page
Number
REPORT SUMMARY 6
1. INTRODUCTION 9
2. TERMS OF REFERENCE 10
3. CONTEXT 13
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 19
5. SERVICE ACTIVITIES 25
6. STAFFING 41
7. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS 53
8. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND PROCUREMENT 57
9. APPRAISAL OPTIONS 65
10. PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS 68
11. EQUALITY ISSUES 75
12. SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL 81
13. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 87
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 3APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE 1 Best Value Project Board 2 Project Initiation Document 3 Central Steering Team 4 Consultation Working Group 5 Staffing and Operational Activities Working Group 6 Finance and Procurement Working Group 7 Partnership Arrangement Working Group 8 Consultation Meetings 9 Survey Questionnaires 10 Schools and Organisations Surveyed Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 4
ABBREVIATIONS APSE Association for Public Service Excellence ASB Aggregated Schools Budget BELB Belfast Education and Library Board BICS British Institute of Cleaning Science CCT Compulsory Competitive Tendering CEC Central Expenditure Costs CMSU Central Management Support Unit for Education and Library Boards COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to Health COSO Coalition on Sexual Orientation CST Central Steering Team C2K Classroom 2000 Project DDA Disability Discrimination Act DE Department of Education for Northern Ireland DID Delivery and Innovation Division EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management ELB Education and Library Board EQIA Equality Impact Assessment ESA Education and Skills Authority ETI Education and Training Inspectorate EU European Union FM Facilities Management IiP Investor in People KPI Key Performance Indicator LMS Local Management of Schools MIS Management Information System MPI Management Performance Indicator NEELB North Eastern Education and Library Board NI Northern Ireland NIAO Northern Ireland Audit Office NICEM Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities OGC Office of Government Commerce OHSAS Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Service OJE Official Journal of the European Union PAT Portable Appliance Testing PFI Private Finance Initiative PID Project Initiation Document PPP Public Private Partnership PRINCE 2 Projects in a Controlled Environment RPANI Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland SEELB South Eastern Education and Library Board SELB Southern Education and Library Board SLA Service Level Agreement SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences TUPE Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) WELB Western Education and Library Board Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 5
REPORT SUMMARY The Central Management Support Unit began the fundamental review of the Education and Library Boards’ Building Cleaning Services in January 2007. This review makes recommendations for establishing a cleaning service in the proposed Education and Skills Authority. The review has examined key aspects of the service to identify strengths and examples of good practice and to highlight areas requiring further development. The main activities of the service are carried out in respect of internal cleaning of schools, branch libraries, controlled youth clubs and other educational estate. It is important to remember that the service operates in a changing environment within the constraints of limited resources. Total service expenditure is approximately 1.7% of the Education and Library Boards’ combined annual recurrent budgets. The review has been carried out using Best Value principles, through a process of Challenge, Compare, Consult and Compete, and in accordance with Projects in a Controlled Environment methodology. The process of gathering and examining qualitative information and statistical data, in conjunction with the consultations undertaken, has informed the findings, conclusions and recommendations. Through this process of examining and consulting, a number of key findings have been made, which are detailed in the following chapters: • Service Activities • Staffing • Public Private Partnerships • Financial Management and Procurement • Appraisal Options • Partnership Arrangements • Equality Issues • Service Delivery Model Funding for cleaning in Northern Ireland is delegated directly to schools, which can then decide on their choice of service provider. Comparisons with Great Britain show that, in the main, in GB the budget is held centrally by local education authorities and cleaning of schools and other properties is carried out solely by the authorities’ in- house services. This system has facilitated a strategic approach to planning, investment, resource utilisation, quality control and efficiency savings within the Cleaning Service. In Northern Ireland it is evident that government thinking is geared towards supported autonomy, with maximum delegation of budgets to schools. With this in mind the review team acknowledges the importance of choice in order to ensure competition and to promote the delivery of quality and value for money services. Based on the evidence and research undertaken, it is a key recommendation of this report that a Northern Ireland-wide single Cleaning Service be established within the Education and Skills Authority, accessible to all schools that wish to purchase its services. Establishment of a single service would enable a range of benefits to be delivered, including: Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 6
• Standardisation and consistency of service, including effective monitoring of
quality standards across all schools and educational estate
• A choice of options, tailored to schools’ needs, in accordance with the move to
supported autonomy
• A strategic approach taken to cleanliness in schools and the promotion of good
hygiene practices
• Access by all schools to a central core of expertise and the provision of advice and
support
• A reduction in the administrative burden on schools, and in particular for
principals
• The delivery of economies of scale to improve value for money and the increase
the effective use of scarce resources
• An increase in collaboration between schools e.g. sharing of cleaning teams and
equipment
• The availability of value-added and specialist Cleaning Services
• The delivery of effective training and development of staff
• The ability to market and promote the service, reaching out to and recruiting from
all sections of the community
In addition to the Cleaning Service, the review examined the potential for setting-up a
facilities management structure to deliver a range of integrated support services to
schools and other educational estate. The establishment of a single Cleaning Service
would facilitate such an approach.
In light of the findings, the review team has reached a series of conclusions that
describe the existing Cleaning Services within the Education and Library Boards.
These conclusions have been classified as strengths and areas for development.
Examples of which are listed below:
Strengths:
9 The service is highly valued and contributes to education at a strategic level
9 A majority of schools receive a good or very good Cleaning Service
9 There are high levels of customer satisfaction with cleaning
9 The service helps to reduce the administrative burden on schools
9 Good health and safety practices are adhered to across the service
9 The service has extensive knowledge of the activities and priorities of schools
9 Effective systems of accountability and reporting are in place
9 A good level of compliance with equality legislation is achieved
Areas for Development:
◙ There is the need to introduce an acceptable Cleaning Service standard that is
applicable to all educational buildings
◙ Standardised monitoring procedures should be implemented in all locations to
ensure the Cleaning Service standard is achieved and maintained
◙ Effective replacement cover procedures for absent staff are required
◙ Imbalances in the profile of the workforce should be addressed
◙ The planning process for new and refurbished buildings requires an input from the
Cleaning Service
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 7Recommendations It is anticipated that the proposed single Cleaning Service, through the adoption of good practice, will build on and improve the current standard of cleaning across schools in Northern Ireland. The report makes a number of recommendations to ensure best value and delivery of a quality and value for money Cleaning Service. These recommendations, which are summarised in chapter 13, are categorised under the following headings: • Strategic recommendations • Scope and standards • Value for money • Public private partnerships • Consultation with stakeholders Members of the Central Management Support Unit would like to record their appreciation and gratitude to all people who have participated in and contributed to this review of Cleaning Services and expressed their honest and informed opinions. Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 8
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Local Government Act 1999, introducing “best value”, came into effect on 1
April 2000 in England and Wales as part of the Government’s commitment to
modernise public services. The Act, which primarily centres around a culture of
continuous improvement with a focus on customers and quality, requires
organisations to be committed to and undertake a programme of “fundamental
reviews”.
In Northern Ireland (NI), similar legislation was introduced for District Councils in
April 2000. Formal arrangements came into effect for the education sector on 1 April
2003, through the Educations and Libraries (NI) Order 2003.
In anticipation of this legislation, coupled with a desire to deliver quality services,
Education and Library Boards (ELBs) entered into a voluntary arrangement in 1999 to
develop a comprehensive approach to managing best value in the education sector.
A Best Value Project Board was established (Appendix 1), the membership of which
includes senior officers from ELBs, the Department of Education (DE) and the
Classroom 2000 Project (C2K). Representatives with observer status include Trades
Unions and the Staff Commission. The Project Board agreed the broader terms of
reference for a Central Management Support Unit (CMSU). The CMSU is an inter-
board unit established in 1999 and its roles include co-ordinating the process of best
value and conducting a programme of fundamental service reviews across ELBs.
An agreed programme of service reviews was established on the basis of those
services which:
• Constitute significant spend;
• Are the subject of an independent or external enquiry e.g. Northern Ireland Audit
Office (NIAO); and
• Also have a significant focus on schools.
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 92.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE
On 7th March 2006, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain MP,
announced the exemption of Cleaning Services in schools from transfer to private
sector contractors undertaking Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects. The
Secretary of State emphasised the importance of securing value for money in all
public services and that he intended to seek real efficiency gains from new public
sector arrangements for the cleaning staff. He then requested a review of the
Cleaning Services across the five ELBs to be undertaken with a view to ensuring that
there are efficient and effective arrangements in place, which offer maximum value
for money.
In response to this announcement, on 22nd September 2006, DE issued terms of
reference for a fundamental review of the building Cleaning Service to the ELBs.
The terms of reference were defined as follows:
• To clearly define the scope and standards of the building Cleaning Service;
challenging and questioning the existing arrangements and producing meaningful
comparisons and benchmarks, both internally and with other external providers
• To examine how current performance could be improved in value for money
terms when considered as a whole service on a cross-board basis, and to anticipate
how the service will operate on the implementation of the Review of Public
Administration in Northern Ireland (RPANI) when cleaning staff will become the
responsibility of a single employing authority under the proposed Education and
Skills Authority (ESA), which is due to become operational in April 2009.
• To consider how the building Cleaning Service could be potentially delivered
effectively alongside PPP contractors in schools, in particular interface
arrangements and implications for costs
• To consult with key stakeholders; taking into account the requirements under
Section 75 (Statutory Duty) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and make
recommendations for the future management and delivery of the service
The scope of the review included:
Service Activities
• Scope of functions (core and non-core)
• Quality standards
• Service baselines
• Performance measurement
• Benchmarks and comparisons
• Value for money
• Fitness for purpose
Staffing
• Staffing levels
• Productivity
• Recruitment and retention
• Training and skills
• Health and safety
• Attendance management
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 10• Terms and conditions of service Management and Supervision • Structures • Roles and responsibilities • Communications • Monitoring and control Public Private Partnerships • Transfer of risk • Interfaces with schools and PPP contractors • Potential benefits Finance • Levels and sources of funding • Costs of service and unit costs • Breakdown of expenditure • Value for money • Income generation • Financial reporting systems • Systems of reporting and accountability • Financial indicators and targets • Job evaluation Procurement • ELB tendering arrangements • Costs of purchasing • Contract arrangements • Value for money testing • Sustainability Appraisal Options • Economic appraisal • Qualitative appraisal Equality Issues • Compliance with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 • Recruitment of people from minority groups Partnership Arrangements • Feasibility of in-house soft Facilities Management approach • Suitability of services • Comparisons with other providers • Potential management and communications framework • Potential benefits and drawbacks Service Delivery Model • Preferred model • Marketing the service Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 11
The review aims to identify strengths within the service, including examples of good practice, and areas for development. Where an example of good practice is attributed to a particular ELB, this does not preclude good practice in the same area in other ELBs. Good practice is recognised in relation to positive feedback from customers and stakeholders, adherence to sound management principles and for examples of creativity or innovation. To facilitate the review, a number of guiding principles have been agreed. These are: • To identify and recommend best practice, from ELBs and other organisations • To meet customer needs, where possible, at a local level • To promote value for money in service delivery • To ensure fitness for purpose of the building Cleaning Service Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 12
3.0 CONTEXT 3.1 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CONTEXT 3.1.1 Building Cleaning There is an extensive renewal and refurbishment programme for educational estate currently underway across NI. The Minister for Education, Caitríona Ruane MLA, recently stated ‘It is a pleasure to see the direct results of funding that is being used for new school buildings. These new facilities will enhance the learning environment of the pupils and will be reflected in their work.’ She went on to say ‘Bright and stimulating classrooms will assist in the nurture of confident, creative and articulate children’. This report underlines the value of properly maintaining and cleaning the educational estate and thereby protecting the substantial investment in infrastructure. ELBs have no statutory duty to provide a Cleaning Service to schools, although there is a legal requirement for buildings to be clean, safe and fit for their purpose. Under the Health and Safety at Work Order (NI) 1978 standards of health, safety and welfare must be upheld with regard to pupils, staff, users and visitors. Senior ELB managers have emphasised the strategic contribution of cleaning. ‘The Cleaning Service is an integral part in the education of our children’. (Chief Executive, WELB) Budgets for acquiring the service are provided through the Local Management of Schools (LMS) funding formula. It is important to establish that schools currently have an open choice as to their Cleaning Service provider. The decision is completely at the discretion of a school’s principal and board of governors. This allows schools to purchase the service from whichever source is considered to be most suitable. Senior managers stress the need for the Cleaning Service to demonstrate quality of service and value for money through benchmarking and performance measurement. 3.1.2 PPP PPP is a government-driven initiative for the delivery of modernised public services and infrastructure, where it represents value for money. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is an element of PPP whereby, in education, the private sector designs, builds, operates and finances a school and then leases back the school over a period of 25 to 30 years in exchange for regular payments. The benefits are that schools are built without the need for capital money up-front and risks are appropriately shared between the private and public sectors. As part of the arrangement, the private sector provides a number of support services to the school, such as maintenance. Underlying principles of PFI are founded on the search for sustained improvement and quality of service delivery whilst achieving value for money. A number of documents have been produced by the Treasury and the NI Assembly in support of this initiative referring to the significance of delivering value for money as part of the process. Government accounting defines value for money as ‘the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the user’s requirements’. The definition goes on to make clear that value for money should not be assumed to mean the lowest cost option. The government only Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 13
uses PFI where it can be shown to deliver value for money and does not come at the expense of employees’ terms and conditions. In this respect, departments have continued to retain the right not to transfer soft service employees to PFI projects. According to the HM Treasury Report ‘PFI: strengthening long-term partnerships’, March 2006, ‘soft services are seen as performing less well on average than other elements of the PFI framework’. Under the current Government the use of PPP has increased in the education sector in NI. In pilot projects in schools, known as ‘pathfinders’, consortia from the private sector have been contracted to provide a full range of support services including maintenance, caretaking, catering and cleaning. In this type of scenario a school and its ELB have to manage an interface with a particular consortium with regard to a number of services and carry out a client role to ensure the required standards are being achieved. From March 2006, following announcements by the Secretary of State, the school catering and building Cleaning Services have been left out of the functions provided by private sector consortia within PPP schools. Although building cleaning has been excluded from the delivery of PPP contracts in schools, it is essential that the service demonstrates value for money through whichever method of delivery is chosen. 3.2 BACKGROUND There is a wide range of service delivery methods for cleaning that are currently employed across the NI education sector. This correlates to the high priority placed in DE’s terms of reference on defining and challenging the arrangements. Building cleaning has historically been delivered through a combination of local authority provision and the schools employing their own cleaners. This provision has varied from organisation to organisation. Across ELBs, the service has evolved at a local level as a result of changing customer requirements and external factors (3.5). As part of these arrangements, the caretaker (now referred to as building supervisor) has normally been employed by the school to undertake duties, including cleaning, and also had responsibility for supervising the cleaning staff. In smaller schools, the building supervisor might be the only cleaner. Therefore the building supervisor has traditionally played an important dual role for the school and the service. In contrast to this, ELBs have employed cleaning site supervisors in some schools to oversee the work of the cleaning staff. ELBs also provide cleaning for some controlled youth clubs, branch libraries, board centres and other educational estate. Schools in the Voluntary Grammar, Grant Maintained Integrated and Irish Medium sectors frequently make their own arrangements for cleaning. These arrangements include using ELB services, employing their own cleaning staff or hiring private sector companies. The Education and Library Boards (NI) Order 1993 introduced Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) for a number of educational support services, including building cleaning. The introduction of CCT led services to focus in great detail on efficiencies, costs and service specifications to ensure they were able to compete with Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 14
potential private sector contractors as part of the tendering process. The service in
each board was successful in winning the contract to deliver cleaning to the schools.
The Labour Government repealed CCT and launched the Best Value initiative, which
became a legal requirement for ELBs in 2003. Best Value differs from CCT in a
number of ways. It places emphasis on quality as well as cost, it applies to all
services within ELBs and it promotes the concept of continuous improvement as
opposed to more inflexible contract specifications. Best Value encourages services to
improve quality on a continuous basis through the adoption of the Charter Mark,
Investors in People (IiP) and the European Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM) Business Excellence Model. In this less prescriptive environment, the
Cleaning Service is able to develop standards and processes that are tailored to
customers’ needs.
As part of the RPANI, the five ELB’s and other educational bodies will come together
to form the ESA. Within the ESA it will be necessary to amalgamate services on a NI
wide basis.
3.3 INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FACTORS
Factors impacting on the service come from two areas: internal and external.
3.3.1 Internal Factors
• Taking account of the need to develop a single service under the auspices of the
ESA, it will be necessary to establish a degree of consistency and coherence in
a number of areas. The service will be required to ascertain baselines of current
performance as a starting point and to enable improvements to be measured.
These baselines will include areas such as productivity, customer satisfaction
levels and unit costs. It is envisaged that a range of performance indicators will be
developed in line with these areas as part of the review process.
• Consideration will also be given to the effective use of appropriate management
information systems to facilitate the management and measurement of
performance. These systems may be employed with regard to attendance
management, performance monitoring, accident-reporting and complaints
procedures.
• In addition, a single service will need to develop common standards in respect of
staff training, health and safety procedures, customer service, corporate identity
and terms and conditions of service.
• Key to long-term success is the ability to provide value for money to customers.
This can be demonstrated through a combination of measuring performance,
customer feedback, stakeholder consultation, retention of customer base and
benchmarking.
• The job evaluation process is ongoing. It is important that this issue is resolved
in a satisfactory manner to ensure that pay is commensurate with the roles and
responsibilities of the job.
• Clarifying and agreeing the role of the building supervisor will be a challenge
that is crucial to the success of the Cleaning Service. The building supervisor is
normally managed by the school or PPP contractor, yet is an integral part of the
service through supervision of the cleaning staff and, often, with an individual
cleaning responsibility.
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 15It is appreciated that implementing change, as described, across a large service will only be achieved through a systematic planning process and over a suitable period of time. 3.3.2 External Factors From an external perspective, the service is facing a series of major service and contextual challenges, including: • The RPANI leading to the ESA and subsequently a single Cleaning Service, which will require restructuring of the service to cater for a larger area of operations, effective communication systems and meeting the needs of a wider customer base, yet maintaining a local aspect to service delivery. The establishment of the ESA is presently at the planning stage and, inevitably, there is a lack of clarity in relation to organisational structure and locations. However, the purpose of the ESA to enhance the capability of schools and other education providers to deliver high quality education and raise standards and support the continued development of a highly skilled and motivated workforce. In addition to the ESA, it is proposed to establish a Library Authority for NI. • The Bain Report ‘The Independent Strategic Review of Education’ 2006, adopted as policy in NI by the Secretary of State, Peter Hain MP, makes recommendations with regard to funding, strategic planning, area based planning and sharing and collaborating. The results are likely to be seen through rationalisation of the educational estate, collegiate arrangements and the sharing of resources between schools. These results will inevitably impact on support services to schools, including the cleaning function. • The Extended Schools and Full Service Schools Programmes, presently being rolled-out in NI, will have an effect through a greater requirement for cleaning and supervision as a result of increased usage and longer operating hours for schools. These may influence the current work patterns, costs and the recruitment and retention of staff. • Equality legislation, and in particular adherence to Section 75 of the NI Order 1998, requires the public sector to consult with specified groups, ensure equality of opportunity and monitor compliance. • There is currently a drive towards ‘supported autonomy’ for schools, in which the funding of education is likely to become less centralised through the ESA. This reduces the level of money retained at centre, which might have an effect on any guaranteed funding for the Cleaning Service from year to year and reduce the incentives for future investment in equipment and training. • PPP will bring about multi-interfaces in relation to the management of schools and services between the school, PPP contractor and in-house services. It will be important to have transparent and open dialogue, build good relations and agree clear boundaries and areas of responsibility for each party. • On a day-to-day basis the Cleaning Service is subject to competition from companies within the private sector. Schools are free to select private sector providers to deliver their cleaning. As such, it is important that exemption from the PPP contracts does not lead to complacency and that the service strives to deliver value for money. • A report by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE), in December 2005, highlighted the skill shortages and problems of recruitment and Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 16
retention in the cleaning, catering and janitorial services. The report identifies
lack of investment in training, a perception of lowly status and competition for
staff from other sources in the private and public sectors. A means of addressing
these difficulties might be for organisations to adopt a ‘soft’ Facilities
Management (FM) approach, thereby increasing full-time posts, enriching jobs
and eliminating the perceived stigma attached to cleaning.
• Environmental aspects of the Cleaning Service are increasing in priority. It is
necessary to deliver a ‘green’ agenda and set a good example in complying with
legislation and best practice in the disposal of waste, energy usage and noise
pollution.
This fundamental review is being carried out against the background of these
environmental factors. Therefore it is important that recommendations are made,
which take account of the likely implications of these developments
3.4 SERVICE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
In each ELB, the Cleaning Service undertakes planning within the overall corporate
framework. Strategic aims and objectives are aligned to those of the organisation
through the delivery of a quality service and by contributing to a safe and healthy
learning environment. Examples of these aims include ‘to supply and maintain a
quality driven Cleaning Service that will contribute to an effective teaching and
learning environment, which is both safe and clean for staff, pupils, teachers and
visitors’ and ‘to continually strive to improve the levels of service provided through a
process of implementing quality or by adding value. Our goal is the provision of
excellence’.
In support of these high level aims, common operational objectives have been
established in relation to:
• Customer care
• Productivity
• Protecting the environment
• Continuous improvement of service
• Training and development of staff
Planning and objective setting are cascaded throughout the organisations by means of
an appraisal process, in which members of managerial and supervisory staff are made
aware of their responsibilities and contribution to the overall success of the service
through their respective cleaning teams.
3.5 CURRENT PROVISION
3.5.1 Staffing Arrangements
Staffing levels employed by individual ELBs vary as a result of the different cleaning
arrangements that have been established. In the Western Education and Library
Board (WELB) all cleaning staff are direct employees of the Board, whereas in the
Belfast Education and Library Board (BELB) nearly all staff are employed by
schools. A significant minority of these schools operate under the ‘Belbclean’
arrangement, whereby the board’s Cleaning Service provides extensive advice,
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 17support and training and does not directly employ or manage the cleaning staff. The
remaining ELBs have a mixture of school and board employed staff, as detailed in
Tables 1 and 2. Further staffing details are given in chapter 6.
3.5.2 Staffing Levels
The Cleaning Service is a major support function in education, covering all locations
and employing a large number of staff. Tables 1 and 2 provide details of total
locations and employees working for schools and for the ELBs’ central services.
Table 1: Number of cleaning staff employed at controlled and maintained schools
and other locations managing their own Cleaning Service
ELB Schools and Locations Cleaning Staff
Belfast 104 317
North Eastern 244 262
South Eastern 177 396
Southern 384 620
Western 0 0
Totals 909 1,595
Source: ELBs
Table 2: Number of cleaning staff employed through ELBs’ central cleaning
arrangements
ELB Schools and Locations Cleaning Staff
Belfast* 48 245
North Eastern 103 564
South Eastern 52 270
Southern 44 630
Western 325 1,060
Totals 592 2,769
Source: ELBs (* schools in the Belbclean arrangement)
3.5.3 Services Provided
The Cleaning Service provides a number of core functions for schools and other board
properties including:
• Daily, weekly and monthly cleaning tasks of classrooms, corridors, toilets and
other areas
• Annual summer clean
• Training for staff in cleaning techniques, health and safety and supervision
• Advice and assistance in relation to recruitment, cleaning surveys, equipment
procurement, safe use of materials and other aspects
• Additional cleaning for specific occasions e.g. school open days
With regard to the training element, this is mainly carried out in accordance with
standards for educational buildings, as defined by the British Institute of Cleaning
Science (BICS). However, not all ELBs use the BICS accreditation process. Training
is also provided, for example by BELB, to external organisations in the public and
private sectors, as a source of income generation.
In addition to the core functions, the service offers limited specialist activities such as
external window cleaning (SELB) and training for building supervisors (all ELBs).
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 184.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of a fundamental review is to improve the quality of services delivered
with regard to efficiency, effectiveness and economy. This is achieved by firstly
identifying areas for development and, secondly, by sourcing examples of good
practice that can be disseminated and adopted.
The methodology followed the “four Cs” approach of Challenge, Compare, Consult
and Compete, drawing on the experience of previous service reviews carried out by
ELBs and the CMSU.
With regard to developments elsewhere, best value is changing in Great Britain from
a ‘procedural’ regime to a more flexible approach, deployed as appropriate within
organisations. The new process relates to inform, consult, involve and devolve. This
is a recent development and, therefore, the review of cleaning has followed the
traditional “four Cs” methodology.
The Best Value Project Board approved the methodology and the management of
the project undertaken in accordance with government recommendations, using the
Projects in a Controlled Environment (PRINCE 2) system. As part of this process a
Project Initiation Document (PID) was produced (Appendix 2) detailing project
objectives, scope, terms of reference, structure, risk log and timetable.
A Central Steering Team (CST) was established (Appendix 3), the membership of
which included service managers from each ELB, officers from Equality, Finance,
Health and Safety, Procurement and CMSU plus representatives from the Delivery
and Innovation Division of the Department for Finance and Personnel. The service
manager from South Eastern Education and Library Board (SEELB) chaired the CST.
In addition, four sub-groups were formed to manage the detailed workings of the
review in specific areas:
• The Consultation Group (Appendix 4) was chaired by the service manager from
BELB with the deputy chair from WELB and comprised representatives from
school principals, school bursars, suppliers, CMSU, equality officer from the
North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB) and best value officer from
SEELB and corporate development officer from WELB.
• The Staffing and Operational Activities Group (Appendix 5) was chaired by the
service manager from WELB with deputy chair from the Southern Education and
Library Board (SELB) and included representatives from cleaning staff in all
ELBs, health and safety manager from BELB, corporate development officer from
NEELB and CMSU.
• The Finance and Procurement Group (Appendix 6) incorporated finance and
procurement officers from NEELB, best value officer from SEELB, corporate
development officer from SELB and CMSU. The group was chaired by the direct
service organisation manager from NEELB with deputy chair from SELB.
• The Partnership Arrangement Group (Appendix 7) was chaired by the head of
CMSU and comprised building cleaning manager from SELB, facilities manager
from BELB, grounds maintenance manager from WELB, school catering manager
from SELB, transport manager from SELB, best value representative from BELB
and CMSU.
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 19The role of the four sub-groups, in conjunction with the CMSU, was to compile and evaluate information and to update the CST at each stage of the review, in addition to critically challenging how the service is delivered. External validation of the review was provided by the Delivery and Innovation Division (DID) of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Members of the DID joined the Project Board and the CST for the duration of the review. 4.1 CHALLENGE The process of challenge underpins the approach to best value reviews. It marks the beginning of the review and sets the scene for what follows by way of recommendations, whilst instilling discipline in the thought process. The inherent challenge aspect of a review is to determine whether the service, or aspects of that service, should be provided at all, or could be delivered in an alternative way. Within the best value concept, service providers strive to achieve continuous improvement through a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Without the element of challenge there can be no effective review, as it is the key to significant improvements in performance and without it, the service is unlikely to establish meaningful targets. Challenging why and how a service is provided requires a fundamental rethink, asking basic yet challenging questions about the needs that each service is intended to address and method of procurement used. Therefore, challenge is intrinsically tied up with the elements of competition, comparison and consultation. The stages of challenge examined: • Why is the service provided? • How is the service configured? • Can the service be delivered differently? • What are the constraints? • Are there different means of resourcing the service? • How does this service relate to others? Challenge was undertaken at all stages of the review, in relation to the scrutiny of the CST, the investigations of the working groups, undertaking comparisons, throughout the consultation process and in specific meetings and workshops. 4.2 COMPARE The comparison stage entailed gathering data both internally from ELBs and externally from similar service providers. As in previous reviews, templates were agreed for the presentation of both statistical and financial data as a means of simplifying the collection and comparison of information across ELBs. Criteria were agreed by the CST to help to identify suitable organisations for external comparison. These included organisations from the public and private sectors. Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 20
This element of the review compares inputs, processes and outputs with similar service providers. Comparisons are made with regard to standards and types of service and levels of resources. A discrete set of performance indicators has been agreed by the service managers, as a means of carrying out comparisons on a like-for-like basis across the ELBs and as a measure of performance for a single service within the ESA. Establishment of performance indicators will also, over a period of time, provide trends and should produce evidence of continuous improvement. The performance indicators, agreed as part of the review, relate to core areas of service: • Productivity (m2 cleaned per hour) • Unit cost (£ per m2 cleaned) • Overall customer satisfaction • Quality standards adhered to • Absenteeism levels and the cost of absence • Staff turnover • Staff training • Number of reported accidents Performance indicators must be quantifiable, relevant to service outcomes, relate to industry standards and contain a combination of customer-facing (e.g. cost and quality) and operational measures (e.g. absenteeism and training). 4.3 CONSULT The concept of consultation and customer involvement supports the current drive towards best value. Listening to and involving users of services in making improvements, setting standards and reviewing services is fundamental to the process. The CST approved the consultation strategy proposed by the Consultation Group. As part of the strategy, the Consultation Group identified a list of stakeholders as well as appropriate methodologies for consulting the various groups. The key stakeholders comprised a wide range of individuals and organisations. The groups are listed below by category: • Core (schools, libraries, youth clubs, board centres, operational cleaning staff, administrative support staff, cleaning managers, pupils, parents, users and suppliers) • Others Education (senior managers, service managers, ELB support staff, further education institutes and building supervisors) • Others Non-education (equality umbrella organisations, local authorities, trades unions and health trusts) Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained to identify emerging themes regarding quality, cost and utilisation of the service. A cross analysis of the data was undertaken to provide a comprehensive picture of the feedback. As such, this report is representative of the views expressed by stakeholders. Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 21
A number of quantitative terms, as employed by the DE, are used in the report in relation to the consultation feedback. In percentages, the terms correspond as follows: • More than 90% - nearly all • 75-90% - most • 50-74% - a majority • 30-49% - a significant minority • 10-29% - a minority • Less than 10% - very few 4.3.1 Qualitative Research A programme of semi-structured interviews was held with a wide range of stakeholders and provided a great deal of qualitative information. This included 26 school visits and 35 other meetings and focus groups. (Detailed lists of the stakeholders involved can be found in Appendix 8.) Key themes to be addressed, as part of the consultation exercise, were identified as follows: • Service baselines (quality, consistency, reliability and cost) • Staffing issues • Improving the service • Customer satisfaction • Value for money • Development of a single service • Equality issues • Financial and non-financial resources • Potential for adopting a soft FM approach The above themes formed the basis of the consultation survey with schools and were used as the agenda for discussions with other core stakeholders through the meetings and focus groups. Findings of the consultation process are included in the relevant sections of the report and have been contextualised to give appropriate and representative weight to the feedback. 4.3.2 Quantitative Research A key part of the consultation involved surveys to collect quantitative data from schools. This quantitative data was gathered from surveys (Appendix 9) of a representative sample of one third of schools within each ELB area. The surveys, targeting school principals, school governors, cleaning staff, pupils and parents, were distributed to 483 schools during March 2007 and returned by the end of May. Additional surveys were carried out of 40 branch libraries, 40 youth clubs and 15 ELB centres, seeking information from the head of the establishment and a number of users. A survey of 16 suppliers to the Cleaning Service was also undertaken. A list of all organisations that participated in the surveys is attached (Appendix 10). Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 22
All questionnaires were returned to CMSU and analysed using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. From the surveys, an overall response rate of
33% was attained. Table 3 gives a detailed breakdown of individual responses.
Table 3: Survey Response Rates
Category Number Number Response Rate
Issued* Returned (%)
School Principals 483 205 42
School Governors 1,296 266 21
Cleaning Staff 1,472 437 30
Pupils 4,330 1,719 40
Parents 4,830 1,234 26
Branch Librarians 40 28 70
Library Users 400 273 68
Senior Youth Workers 40 9 23
Youth Club Users 400 125 31
Heads of ELB Centre 15 8 53
ELB Centre Users 150 75 50
Suppliers 16 9 56
Overall Total 13,472 4,388 33
Source: CMSU
* A set number of questionnaires for cleaning staff were issued to each school, which
might have exceeded the number of respondents within each establishment, thereby
reducing the maximum response rate.
Summaries of the results have been produced on a Northern Ireland aggregate basis,
highlighting the position for ELBs in total. Percentage results within the report refer
to the valid responses from those respondents to which the various questions apply.
It is acknowledged that the response rate from cleaning staff was disappointing,
particularly as the recommendations of the review could have a major impact on that
group. However, feedback was also obtained from staff at the school visits. On a
positive note, higher rates of responses were obtained from several other groups, such
as principals, pupils and library users.
4.4 COMPETE
The CST considered the issue of competition and identified two distinct elements.
Firstly, there is competition from a variety of sources within the private sector. On a
daily basis the Cleaning Service must compete with private sector cleaning
contractors. There are many strong points within private sector organisations such as
marketing, cost control, professional approach and the need to provide quality and
satisfy customers to ensure their survival. Relevant facts and figures have been
sought from the private sector, which are often viewed as commercially sensitive
information. Nevertheless, comparative information has been obtained throughout the
review in areas of recruitment, training, terms and conditions of service, pay, value
for money, prices, health and safety and communications.
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 23The cleaning element within a school budget does not identify or ring-fence an amount of money to be spent on the service. In effect, schools can spend what they see as appropriate on cleaning and, furthermore, can employ a service from any sector as long as certain criteria are met, for example with regard to child protection, liability insurance and health and safety. The building Cleaning Service is also in competition with private sector cleaning companies for the recruitment of suitable staff and it is necessary that prospective employees perceive benefits for working in the public sector to counter this competition. Secondly, the Cleaning Service is required to be competitive through demonstrating value for money, fitness for purpose, price of the service, productivity, quality of managers and staff, standard of service and customer retention. Exemption from PPP contracts does not preclude schools from choosing service providers from the private sector nor does it guarantee the long-term security of the service. Only by remaining competitive will those particular objectives be achieved. Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 24
5.0 SERVICE ACTIVITIES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter addresses the activities of the service. These activities relate to core and
non-core functions, service standards, working patterns and health and safety matters,
which can have strategic importance within education.
As part of the benchmarking process, information has been obtained about activities
of acknowledged best in class cleaning organisations (APSE Pursuing Excellence in
Local Government Volumes 1-3). Common features of these organisations are:
• Pro-active, innovative and good at managing change
• Ongoing consultation with customers and identification of their needs
• Achievement of quality standards e.g. Charter Mark and IiP
• Investment in staff, with training programmes to recognised standards
These elements of good practice were displayed, to a greater or lesser degree, across
the ELBs and their Cleaning Services.
5.2 STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE
In visits to schools all the participants stressed how much the service is valued and the
importance of cleaning to the delivery of education. It became apparent that cleaning
impacts strategically in a number of ways including:
• Clean schools and buildings facilitate a positive learning experience and
contribute to the ethos and culture of the organisation
• A safe and healthy environment reassures parents, is considered essential to the
wellbeing of staff and pupils (particularly those in the most vulnerable age groups)
and endorses good hygiene practices.
• Promoting a positive image to parents and visitors is important to schools that are
in competition for potential pupils and portrays a business-like approach. To
quote a school principal ‘a clean school puts backsides on seats and backsides
on seats result in an increased budget for the school’
• A clean building sets a good example to pupils to have respect for property and
the environment and for the positive use of public facilities. This finding is
supported by the Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland in its document
‘Working Towards Healthy Schools’, which states that ‘the environment of the
school provides pupils with hidden messages beyond the taught curriculum’.
• There are hidden costs of not cleaning to the necessary standard, such as
deterioration of property and increased expenditure on maintenance, especially
with older buildings
• Cleaning is intrinsic to the availability of buildings, particularly in the event of
incidents such as burst pipes and acts of vandalism
• The importance of the Cleaning Service contributing at the planning stage of new
buildings with regard to the installation of suitable floor and wall surfaces, the
availability of secure and adequate storage and access to sufficient facilities e.g.
sluice points, water supply and electrical sockets. The DE’s school building
handbook does not currently incorporate these requirements.
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 25• The need to recognise the overall importance of the service that is way beyond
any observation of ‘just day to day cleaning’ and the role it plays in safeguarding
the major investment in educational estate
Discussions with organisations outside of the education sector in NI reinforce these
findings through their commitment to and recognition of effective Cleaning Services.
A typical comment being ‘cleaning is seen as important to all aspects of
organisational success’.
These findings were further underlined through the outcomes of the surveys of school
principals, school governors, board centres, branch libraries, youth clubs, pupils,
parents and cleaning staff.
Nearly all principals and governors (99.0% and 99.2% respectively) agree that ‘a
clean school is an important contribution towards a positive learning environment’.
A majority of pupils agree that ‘a clean school helps me to concentrate on my lessons’
(71.0%) and most believe that ‘a clean school is important to me’ (85.2%)
Nearly all parents rate the following issues as important:
• ‘A clean school in contributing to a positive learning environment’ (96.7%)
• ‘A clean school in contributing to a healthy environment’ (99.3%)
Nearly all parents also agree that, in relation to their own schools:
• ‘The cleanliness of the school helps to create a positive learning environment’
(93.5%)
• ‘The cleanliness of the school helps to promote a healthy environment’ (94.9%)
• ‘The standard of cleanliness presents a positive image of the school to visitors’
(94.1%)
Most cleaning staff agree that:
• ‘A clean school helps pupils to learn more effectively’ (81.7%)
• ‘The Cleaning Service is valued within the school’ (77.3%)
In the remaining educational estate, nearly all customers (98.7% of board centres,
branch libraries and youth clubs) agree that a clean place of work contributes to a
more effective, enjoyable and healthy environment.
It is clear from the consultation process that cleaning is viewed as a strategically
important factor in the delivery of education and that inadequate cleaning practices
can have a negative impact in many ways. Taking account of this perspective, the
value of cleaning should be fully recognised by all parties in ELBs, the ESA and the
DE, including senior management. Raising the service profile and the awareness of
its strategic importance should be carried out through the lobbying of government to
guarantee adequate funding.
5.3 CORE FUNCTIONS
Although the various ELBs offer their Cleaning Services through different
mechanisms, there are certain functions that are common and these comprise:
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 26• Providing a range of cleaning operations such as waste removal, dusting,
sweeping, vacuum cleaning, mopping, scrubbing and polishing. These are
normally divided into daily, weekly, monthly and periodic tasks and apply, for
example, to reception areas, classrooms, corridors, stairs, toilets and changing
rooms
• Management and supervision of people, finances and non-financial resources
• Training and development of staff
• Undertaking site surveys to determine the needs of each location in respect of
cleaning hours, divisions of labour, work patterns and levels of equipment and
materials
• Monitoring procedures to maintain service standards
• Providing ongoing advice and support to schools, libraries, youth clubs and
education centres
Feedback from respondents of the surveys shows that most are satisfied with the
current levels of service (80%) and only a minority (11.0%) wishes to change these
arrangements.
Most members of cleaning staff ‘have adequate equipment and materials for the work
I do’ (84.5%) and nearly all state ‘I know what is expected of me at work’ (94.1%)
thereby, enabling them to carry out their core work. Anecdotal evidence from visits
to schools suggests a degree of dissatisfaction by staff with the effectiveness of
cleaning materials provided. In some instances, cleaners bring their own materials
such as bleach into schools, which should be discouraged as it is a violation of the
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations.
The service operates an infection control system using colour coded equipment to
prevent cross contamination between, for example, toilet areas and classrooms.
Feedback from school visits indicates that in a minority of locations the system is not
always complied with and emphasises the importance of training.
The core functions have been designed over time to accommodate the needs of
customers and in most cases these needs are met. However difficulties have been
identified that need to be addressed to ensure fitness for purpose. These involve:
• Conflict over the role of building supervisors, employed by the school yet
responsible for planning, organising and controlling the work of cleaners who are
part of the ELB’s Cleaning Service
• The absence of clear and consistent monitoring systems within some ELBs and
the importance of an objective and impartial system for measuring compliance
with specified service standards
• The widespread practice of closing toilets during school opening hours, which can
create embarrassment for pupils and contravene guidelines for the number of
pupils per toilet, as detailed in the DE’s school building handbook
• Evidence of limited communications between the Cleaning Service and customers
leading to lack of clarity regarding service standards, levels of advice and support
etc
• Practices and initiatives creating additional work for cleaning staff, such as pupils
dining in classrooms and after school activities
Fundamental Service Review: Building Cleaning 27You can also read
