How to Navigate the Local Government Job Evaluation Process and Secure the Grade Your Role Deserves
- truthaboutlocalgov
- Jan 15
- 11 min read
Job evaluation in local government is rarely anyone’s favourite part of the recruitment cycle. It’s detailed, evidence‑driven, and often moves at a pace that feels entirely out of sync with the operational pressures services are under. When you’re juggling statutory deadlines, political expectations, and a team that’s already stretched thin, the last thing you want is a slow, technical process standing between you and the ability to recruit.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: job evaluation is the single most important step in securing the grade, and therefore the salary, that will determine whether your recruitment succeeds or fails. You can write the perfect job advert, craft a compelling narrative, and run a slick campaign, but if the grade is wrong, the market will simply pass you by.
And in today’s labour market, councils cannot afford failed campaigns, re‑advertisements, or six‑month delays. Workforce pressures are no longer background noise, they are shaping service delivery, organisational resilience, and the ability to meet statutory duties. That’s why navigating job evaluation strategically is no longer optional. It’s essential. This guide is written specifically for local government officers who need to get a role evaluated, graded, and ready to recruit in a highly competitive environment, one where every grade point and every salary band genuinely matters.
Why Job Evaluation Matters More Than Ever in Local Government
Local government is operating in a labour market defined by structural shortages, high turnover, and intense competition for specialist skills. The latest workforce data from the Local Government Association highlights just how challenging the landscape has become:
Local government employs around 1.28–1.29 million people across the UK, making it one of the largest and most complex workforces in the country.
Permanent staff account for roughly 89% of the workforce, with 10–11% temporary or casual, reflecting the sector’s reliance on flexible staffing to plug gaps.
Female employees make up around 73% of the workforce, a demographic reality that shapes everything from job design to flexible working expectations.
Part‑time work remains significant, with nearly half of roles part‑time in some authority types, a structural feature that affects recruitment pipelines and progression routes.
These headline figures sit alongside well‑known, persistent recruitment challenges in critical professional areas:
Planning
Environmental Health
Building Control
Highways and Transport
Property and Asset Management
Finance and Section 151‑track roles
These are not niche shortages, they are system‑wide. Councils across the country report difficulty attracting qualified planners, experienced surveyors, commercial property professionals, environmental health officers, and senior finance staff. Many of these roles are statutory, high‑risk, or central to capital delivery and regeneration, meaning vacancies have real‑world consequences.
In this context, an under‑graded role is not just a technical issue, it’s a recruitment risk. It can mean:
fewer applicants
weaker shortlists
failed campaigns
higher agency spend
increased pressure on existing staff
delays to statutory or strategic work
A mis‑graded role can cost a council far more than the difference between one grade and the next. That’s why understanding, and navigating, the job evaluation process effectively is so important. It’s not about gaming the system. It’s about ensuring the role is accurately represented, fairly assessed, and competitively positioned in a labour market where councils are fighting hard for talent.
A Practical Guide to Navigating Local Government Job Evaluation
1. Start with the real local government context of the role
One of the biggest mistakes managers make is assuming that job evaluation panels “already know” what local government roles involve. They don’t. Panels only score what is explicitly written, and they cannot infer context, even if it feels obvious to you. Local government roles carry a set of responsibilities that are fundamentally different from those in the private sector or wider public sector. These must be spelled out clearly and unambiguously:
Statutory duties, Many roles exist because legislation requires them. If the postholder carries legal accountability, enforcement powers, or statutory deadlines, this must be stated explicitly.
Regulatory enforcement, Whether it’s planning enforcement, environmental health inspections, trading standards, or building control, regulatory responsibility significantly affects scoring.
Political sensitivity, Councils operate in a political environment. Roles that advise Cabinet Members, manage politically contentious issues, or operate under public scrutiny must articulate this.
Public accountability, Decisions often affect residents, businesses, and communities directly. The reputational and service‑impact risks should be described.
Emergency response, Many roles contribute to out‑of‑hours responses, civil contingencies, or urgent operational decisions. Panels need to see this clearly.
Partnership working across complex systems, Councils rarely work alone. If the role leads or influences multi‑agency work with the NHS, police, housing associations, contractors, or regional bodies, this complexity must be visible.
These elements are often the difference between one grade and the next, but only if they are written down. Panels cannot score what they cannot see.
2. Write the job description for the NJC panel, not for internal audiences
A common pitfall is writing job descriptions that read like internal communications documents, full of narrative, values, and organisational tone, but light on the hard evidence that NJC panels need to score accurately. NJC job evaluation is a factor‑based, evidence‑driven process. Panels are not judging the person, the team, or the service, they are judging the role against specific criteria. That means your job description must be written with the panel in mind.
Spell out the things that matter most in the NJC scheme:
The scale of budgets, Whether it’s £50k or £50m, quantify it. Budget responsibility is a major scoring factor.
The size and complexity of asset portfolios, Particularly relevant for Property, Highways, Housing, and Regeneration roles.
The statutory frameworks the role operates within, Planning law, environmental health legislation, highways regulations, safeguarding duties, procurement law, panels need to see the legal context.
The level of political exposure, Does the role brief Members? Attend committees? Manage politically sensitive issues? This must be explicit.
The degree of professional autonomy, Does the postholder make independent decisions? Provide expert advice? Sign off statutory notices?
The risk profile of decisions, Financial risk, legal risk, safety risk, reputational risk, all of these influence scoring.
Panels cannot assume, interpret, or “read between the lines”. They can only evaluate the evidence in front of them. The more clearly and precisely you articulate the role’s responsibilities, the more accurately it will be graded.
3. Use NJC factor language deliberately
One of the most effective, and most overlooked, ways to strengthen a job evaluation submission is to use the NJC scheme’s own vocabulary. The NJC framework is built around factor levels, each of which is associated with specific descriptors. These words are not decorative. They are scoring signals. When you use the scheme’s language, you help the panel map your description to the correct level of demand. When you don’t, you leave room for interpretation, and interpretation almost always leads to a lower score. For example:
“considerable” vs “some”, These are not synonyms. “Considerable” implies sustained, high‑level responsibility or demand. “Some” suggests occasional or limited involvement.
“complex” vs “routine”, Complexity is a major driver of scoring. If the role requires navigating competing priorities, interpreting legislation, or balancing political, financial, and operational pressures, say so.
“wide‑ranging” vs “limited”, A role that spans multiple services, partners, or systems should be described as such.
“frequent” vs “occasional”, Frequency matters. If the postholder regularly engages with Members, partners, or the public, make that explicit.
Using NJC factor language does two things:
It aligns your description with the scoring framework, reducing ambiguity.
It demonstrates that the demands of the role sit at a higher level, where appropriate.
This isn’t about gaming the system. It’s about accurately reflecting the reality of local government work in the language the scheme is designed to interpret.
4. Evidence the scale of local government responsibility
Local government roles often carry a level of responsibility that is not immediately obvious unless it is quantified. Panels respond far more strongly to concrete evidence than to general statements.
For example, instead of writing:
“Responsible for managing budgets”
Write:
“Responsible for managing a £12m capital programme and a £3.5m revenue budget across multiple service areas.”
Instead of:
“Leads on enforcement activity”
Write:
“Holds statutory enforcement powers under the Housing Act 2004, issuing notices, initiating prosecutions, and making decisions with direct legal and financial implications for the authority.”
Instead of:
“Works with Members”
Write:
“Provides professional advice directly to Cabinet Members, attends scrutiny committees, and manages politically sensitive issues with significant reputational risk.”
Local government roles frequently involve:
multi‑million‑pound capital programmes, especially in Highways, Regeneration, Housing, and Property
statutory enforcement powers, in Planning, Environmental Health, Trading Standards, and Building Control
responsibility for public safety, from highways defects to food hygiene to safeguarding
direct accountability to elected Members, including formal reporting, scrutiny, and political briefings
cross‑council leadership responsibilities, leading multi‑disciplinary teams, partnerships, or system‑wide programmes
These are not minor details. They are the backbone of the evaluation. The more precisely you quantify the scale, risk, and impact of the role, the more accurately the panel can score it. Vague descriptions lead to vague scoring. Specific descriptions lead to specific, defensible grades.
5. Don’t overlook working conditions and environmental demands
Working conditions are one of the most consistently under‑described elements of local government job descriptions, and one of the easiest ways to lose valuable points in the evaluation process. Many managers assume these factors are “just part of the job” and therefore don’t need to be spelled out. But in the NJC scheme, working conditions are a formal scoring category, and failing to describe them accurately can materially affect the grade. Local government roles often involve conditions that are very different from office‑based work in other sectors. These should be described clearly and specifically, including:
Site inspections, Whether it’s construction sites, food premises, private rented homes, highways, or public spaces, inspections introduce physical, environmental, and safety demands that must be articulated.
Lone working, Many officers work alone in residents’ homes, remote locations, or enforcement settings. This carries risk and requires judgement, training, and protocols that should be reflected in the job description.
Outdoor environments, Highways, parks, waste sites, regeneration areas, and environmental inspections often require work in all weather conditions.
Emergency call‑outs, Flooding, dangerous structures, environmental hazards, safeguarding concerns, and out‑of‑hours incidents all increase the demands and unpredictability of the role.
Exposure to challenging or hazardous conditions, This may include unpleasant environments, biohazards, aggressive behaviour, contaminated land, unsafe buildings, or conflict situations.
These factors influence scoring, but only if they are described clearly, factually, and without understatement. A single line such as “occasional site visits” will not capture the reality of a role that spends 40% of its time inspecting properties, responding to emergencies, or working in uncontrolled environments.
The rule of thumb is simple: if the role regularly leaves the office, interacts with risk, or operates in unpredictable settings, describe it in detail.
6. Use external market data to strengthen your business case
Although job evaluation is an internal process focused on fairness and consistency, external labour‑market data is increasingly important in helping HR and unions understand the consequences of under‑grading a role. External data does not change the NJC scoring, but it does strengthen the narrative around why the role must be accurately represented and competitively positioned. For example:
Heads of Property salaries vary widely across councils, often ranging from £55k to £90k+, depending on the size, risk, and complexity of the asset portfolio. A council with a £1bn estate cannot realistically recruit at the same level as one with a £50m portfolio.
Planning roles remain some of the hardest to fill nationally, with councils reporting persistent shortages, high agency spend, and repeated failed campaigns.
Environmental Health and Building Control roles face long‑standing national shortages, driven by qualification bottlenecks, competition from the private sector, and an ageing workforce.
This context matters because job evaluation panels do not operate in a vacuum. When you present a role that is:
statutory
high‑risk
market‑sensitive
difficult to recruit
essential to capital delivery or regulatory compliance
…external data helps reinforce why the grade must reflect the true level of responsibility.
It also helps HR and unions understand the wider organisational risk:
Under‑grading leads to failed recruitment.
Failed recruitment leads to higher agency costs.
Higher agency costs lead to budget pressure and service instability.
Service instability leads to political and statutory risk.
By grounding your business case in both internal evidence and external labour‑market realities, you create a more compelling, defensible argument for why the role must be evaluated accurately the first time.
7. Engage HR and unions early
Local government job evaluation is not a solo exercise, it is a partnership process involving managers, HR, and trade unions. The earlier you bring these partners into the conversation, the smoother and faster the evaluation will be. Early engagement helps you understand:
Local precedents Every council has its own internal history of how roles have been graded. Understanding where similar posts have landed, and why, gives you a realistic sense of the likely outcome and the evidence you’ll need.
How your council interprets the NJC scheme While the NJC framework is national, its application varies locally. Some councils place more weight on political exposure, others on financial responsibility, others on working conditions. Knowing these nuances helps you write a job description that aligns with local expectations.
What evidence panels typically look for Some panels want detailed statutory references. Others want quantified budgets. Others want clarity on decision‑making autonomy. HR and union colleagues can tell you what makes a strong submission.
Where similar roles have landed This is invaluable. If your neighbouring authority grades a similar role two levels higher because of statutory risk or asset complexity, that’s useful context. If your own council has recently evaluated a comparable post, that sets a benchmark.
Engaging early also builds trust. HR and unions are far more likely to support your case when they’ve been involved from the outset rather than presented with a “finished” job description at the eleventh hour. Most importantly, early engagement:
reduces delays
prevents misunderstandings
avoids unnecessary appeals
ensures the process is collaborative rather than adversarial
In a system built on fairness and consistency, partnership is not optional, it’s essential.
8. Prepare for the appeal process, even if you never need it
Even with the best preparation, some roles will come back with a grade that doesn’t reflect their true level of responsibility. This is not a failure, it’s part of the process. Appeals are normal in local government and exist to ensure fairness, transparency, and consistency. If the initial grade doesn’t reflect the role’s demands, you’ll need:
Comparator roles within the council These are powerful. If a role with similar or lower responsibility is graded higher, that’s a strong basis for appeal. Comparators help panels understand internal equity.
Clearer articulation of risk and accountability Many appeals succeed because the original submission under‑described statutory risk, political exposure, or the consequences of poor decision‑making. Appeals allow you to correct that.
Additional evidence of statutory or political responsibility This might include references to legislation, regulatory frameworks, committee responsibilities, or emergency response duties that weren’t fully captured the first time.
External market data to contextualise recruitment risk While external data doesn’t change the NJC scoring, it strengthens the narrative. If the role sits in a profession with national shortages, Planning, Environmental Health, Building Control, Property, Finance, that context matters.
Appeals are not confrontational. They are:
a second opportunity to present evidence
a safeguard against inconsistency
a mechanism for ensuring fairness
a normal part of the NJC process
The key is to approach appeals with clarity, evidence, and professionalism, not frustration. A well‑prepared appeal often results in a more accurate grade and a stronger recruitment outcome.
Final Thought: Job Evaluation Is a Strategic Step in Local Government Recruitment
Job evaluation is often seen as a procedural hurdle, a necessary but frustrating step between identifying a need and getting a role out to market. But in reality, it is far more than that. When approached strategically, job evaluation becomes one of the most powerful tools a council has for shaping its workforce, strengthening its recruitment outcomes, and protecting itself legally and financially. When done well, job evaluation becomes:
a tool for securing the right grade A well‑evidenced submission ensures the role is recognised for its true level of responsibility, complexity, and risk, not an oversimplified version of it.
a foundation for competitive recruitment In a labour market where councils are competing with the private sector, other authorities, and national bodies, the right grade is the difference between attracting strong candidates and running repeated, costly campaigns.
a safeguard against equal pay risk Transparent, evidence‑based grading protects councils from challenge and ensures fairness across services, teams, and professions.
a way to articulate the real value of local government roles Many roles carry statutory, political, and public‑facing responsibilities that are invisible unless written down. Job evaluation forces these to the surface, and that visibility matters.
In a labour market where councils must compete harder than ever for specialist talent, navigating job evaluation effectively is not just an administrative task. It is a strategic act, one that shapes service resilience, organisational capability, and the council’s ability to deliver for its communities.
Approach it with clarity, evidence, and intent, and it becomes a genuine asset rather than an obstacle.
