You asked us (conference, 28.1.2021 [1]) how many assistants (ASTs) successfully complete the certification process (no mean feat!) but do not find an administrator (AD) post.[*] This information is not so readily available but we’re good at digging and we asked HR to fill in some blanks and clear up discrepancies.
We count 1097 successful officials (the certifiés/those ’certified’ as apt [1]) in total from all 15 certification procedures to date (2005-2019 [2]) using HR reports for 2015 [2] and 2019 [3], together with administrative notices [4]. HR confirms this count but provides figures which differ slightly from those published (see updated tables below [3]).
HR provides the figure of 922 ASTs becoming ADs up to and including 2019 (it acknowledges the discrepancy between this and the figure of 920 it published in HR in 2019 [3] p. 38 and the total of 876 from adding together the figures published in the tables reproduced below for 2015 and 2019 [3]).
Unfortunately, it’s not simply a case of subtracting one figure from the other to see who did not find an AD post since it is not possible to know from the two HR reports how many of those 175 certifiés outstanding still have time to find a post before their deadline expires and how many no longer have that option. HR states by email that lists became time limited all were emptied before they expired [4].
A further complication is that certifiés are counted in the year the selection procedure began and those appointed as AD are counted in the year of appointment. For these reasons it is possible to have more AD appointments than certifiés in a given year, as has happened in every certification procedure from 2012-2016 except 2016 (see tables reproduced below [3]).
So, the certification process and its outcomes are not as transparent as we might hope. In short, it certainly does looks like it’s possible to complete the long and arduous process of certification and remain an AST, but that this is an uncommon occurrence [5].
Let us know your experiences [5] of the certification process!
As always, if you have questions or comments, feel free to contact us [6].
———————————————-
[*] Update 14.04.2023 How many colleagues are admitted to the certification training but do not complete it successfully? i.e. how many colleagues do not pass all 3 exams? The latest published overview (January 2023 [7]) puts that figure overall (since 2005) at 8.5% (‘global pass rate’ is 91.5%).
[1] Why do you use the French term when there’s an English one available? We do try not to do this, but certified/certifiable in English is open to misinterpretation [8]…
[2] Each certification exercise stretches over several years e.g. training for the 2005 exercise took place in 2006, the corresponding lists were published in December 2006 and so the first AD nominations of certified officials took place only in 2007. The certifiés from the 2020 procedure will be announced in December 2021.
This timeline is lengthened when there are exam resits or where an AST might be awaiting promotion before making the leap to AD, since ‘Seniority in grade is set to zero on the date of appointment in the AD function group. The seniority in grade acquired in AST function group is not taken into account’ seniority is lost on taking an AD role.’ (Certification procedure [9])
[3] HR suggests some differences may be due to AD nominations in December and will look at how to correct these discrepancies.
Bilan de l’exercice de Certification 2019/20 [10], January 2021, p. 6 .lists 1525 people who completed certification 2005-2020 with 93 still having the option to resit.
‘Since 2005, 920 qualified AST officials have been appointed to AD jobs under this procedure.’ p.38, HR in 2019 [3]
Annex IV, p.107, HR in 2019 [3] with changes marked in red as per HR emailed figures.
See a bigger image [11].
Annex IV, p.73, HR in 2015 [2]
See a bigger image [12].
An eagle-eyed DG CNECT colleague (thanks!) pointed out that the first row of these tables is not quite the same (‘AST5 and +’ and ‘eligible population’). (17.3.2021) HR is unable to verify whether the two terms are synonymous as used here but suggests that they are indeed the same. A second issue is that since only those career development reviews (CDRs) from AST5 onwards now count (2 out of the last 3 marked with ‘the official has the potential required to take on the functions of an administrator’), a potential candidate is not eligible to be admitted to the certification procedure until at the very least AST5 step 2, so those that HR lists in the 2019 report as ‘population AST5 and +’ may in fact not (yet) be eligible. i.e. only those ‘AST5 step 2 and +’ can in reality have 2 completed CDRs. HR agrees that this is the case (17.3.2021).
[4] List and individual extensions are possible.
‘This list shall have a limited period of validity which will run at least until 31 December of the year in which the 36-month period specified in Article 12(2) comes to an end. The period of validity shall be specified by the appointing authority in the call for expressions of interest and may be extended if necessary.’ Article 11, C(2013) 6859 final [13]
‘For the purposes of calculating the periods of 18 and 36 months referred to above, periods of leave on personal grounds or secondment at the request of the officials shall not be included.’ Certification procedure [4]
HR states by email that this prolongation option has not yet been necessary as all except one certifié found AD posts and that that person was no longer interested in being appointed AD.
[5] In response to our requests, HR did offer a little more detail on this topic (17.3.2021)
Some 20 colleagues (2006-2013 exercises) (both those who resat and those who didn’t have to resit) are still in active service and have not yet found an AD post.
‘There may be multiple reasons why these colleagues have not found an AD post: they are happy in their current AST post and might not currently be actively looking for an AD post, around half of these colleagues have in the meantime become Senior Assistant, some colleagues are currently posted in a delegation, etc.’
See DG HR, 2021, Human Resources in 2020 [14] p. 97 point 3 for more up-to-date figures.