Developing graduates at the Treasury

Judging by the sustained external demand for its staff, the Treasury can lay claim to being the foremost policymaking department in Whitehall. However, I want it to get better still. And that is why I am particularly pleased that the first steps of a new Graduate Development Programme have taken place. Some 40 new recruits attended last month. A further 60 will start in September, when the Programme will be launched in its full form. It is a programme designed by Treasury officials for Treasury officials, though almost certainly it has wider application. And as it evolves we will want to involve external experts and commentators, such as the IfG, to ensure that the design of our programme is informed by the latest thinking and research. But first some background. The reform of the civil service fast stream has undoubtedly benefited the majority of Whitehall departments, for whom a succession of six monthly placements, based on the development model of large corporations, is clearly relevant. But for smaller specialist market-facing departments, like the Treasury, it has presented a challenge. The Treasury formally abolished the “fast stream” in the early 1990s following the Fundamental Expenditure Review led by the young Jeremy Heywood and Dr Suzanne Cook. As part of a move to unified grading system, we ceased to distinguish between where we sourced our graduate trainees. That does not mean we stopped recruiting people from the civil service fast stream. We did. But we did not give these recruits special treatment. And we took advantage of the devolved nature of the programme to insist on 18-month placements rather than annual placements. This reflected the view of stakeholders that Treasury staff tended to move around too quickly and that Treasury officials should spend more time doing a job than learning a job. It also reflected a view that a small organisation like the Treasury could not “carry” graduate trainees: we wanted them to do proper jobs which contributed to Treasury objectives. This was even more important given the propensity for young Treasury officials to be promoted into jobs elsewhere in Whitehall, or to move to higher paying jobs at the Bank of England or the private sector. The Treasury increasingly uses its brand name to recruit directly: our last advertisement led to around 2000 applications, with 230 invited to assessment centres and nearly 100 offers made. We tend to supplement direct recruitment with judicious use of “fast stream” specialists, in particular economists, who are allowed to do longer tours of duty. But if we are going to recruit people directly it is really important that their induction and subsequent training equips them to add value as quickly as possible. A good development programme should not only equip recruits to do the job; it should provide each graduate intake with a ready-made network and encourage the new recruit ultimately to feel part of the Treasury and to stay longer as a result. Our new graduate entrants started their Treasury careers with a full week of training before they formally took up their post. September’s cohort is expected to have up to six weeks of training over a two-year period. The first week included an introduction to the Treasury, in terms of its key functions, what it does and how it works with others. They learned how the Treasury operates and what it expects as an employer. They got an introduction to policymaking, which included the tools they need to do the job: written and oral communications, where to go to for research and analysis etc. And they have begun to assimilate the knowledge necessary to be a Treasury official: for example, there is half a day on the economy and public finances, led by the Chief Economic Adviser, Sir David Ramsden. In future weeks and months, we will be providing a three day module on Economics for non-Economists, as well as a workshop on Project Management and further training on legal frameworks, as well as commercial skills and corporate finance. And there will be one or two days each on Public Spending and tax; Welfare, Growth and International issues; and an Introduction to the Financial World. The programme will last around two years, and will finish with a four-day Advanced Policy School. Of course, training is no substitute for learning on the job. But what I find exciting about this programme is that it has been designed by the current generation of policy advisers and analysts (generally officials in their late 20s or early 30s) in partnership with our HR colleagues, and in consultation with some of the best practitioners in the private and public sectors. It has not been sub-contracted solely to HR or an out of touch group of senior officials. And the fact that the programme is being delivered in-house by the current generation of Treasury officials, alongside the HR experts, should enable it to evolve and remain relevant and value for money for many years to come.