Best value

Report: 12
Date: 8 March 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

This paper seeks members' views on recent GLA proposals to distribute the statutory summary of the policing plan / best value performance plan with a GLA-family newsletter. The paper also asks members to consider and approve the programme of best value reviews for 2001/02 to 2004/05.

A. Recommendations

Distribution of summary

1. That members support the continued production of a joint summary of the policing plan/best value performance plan with GLA partners.
2. That the joint summary should be distributed as a stand-alone document rather than inclusion with/within a GLA-family newsletter.

Programme of best value reviews

3. That the best value review of managing information should be scheduled provisionally for 2003/04.
4. That the nature of the review of managing information should be re-considered following implementation of the MPS 'Information Strategy 2000'.
5. That the current MPS strategic review of human resources be re-designated as a police authority best value review.

B. Supporting information

1. This paper deals with two issues related to best value:

• the type of covering material to be distributed with the summary of the policing plan/best value performance plan; and
• the programme of best value reviews for the next four years (2001/02 to 2004/05).

2. Each issue was subject to discussion at meetings attended by members on 28 February and 1 March respectively. As a consequence, this paper could not be circulated with the agenda and other papers.

Distribution of the summary policing plan/best value performance plan

3. The Authority is obliged to prepare and publish an annual policing plan / best value performance plan for the financial year 2001/02 by 31 March 2001. The contents of the plan, and extent of distribution, are defined by legislation plus statutory guidelines.

4. The Authority must also prepare and publish a summary of the plan. The content, date of publication and extent of distribution of the summary are open to local interpretation within statutory guidelines circulated by the Home Office on 12 January 2001. These guidelines are summarised at Appendix 1.

5. At the meeting on 19 December 2000 FPBV Committee considered options for structuring the summary. Members agreed that, on balance, MPA interests would best be represented by a summary prepared jointly with the GLA and other functional bodies. FPBV Committee also agreed that detailed consideration of the plan and its summary should be conducted by an 'Oversight Panel' (chaired by Graham Tope and consisting of a small group of members plus senior MPA and MPS officers).

6. The Panel supported the preparation of a joint summary to supplement the full plan (itself consisting of an executive summary and detailed annexes). The intention underlying this approach is for the full plan to be used as a base reference document. However, the plan itself would not be used as the primary means of public or partner engagement since this function would be performed by the joint summary and executive summary.

7. At its meeting on 20 February 2001 FPBV Committee considered a 'mock-up' of the joint summary prepared by GLA consultants. The proposed level of distribution was 80 per cent of households in London (approximately 2.5 million). Members noted the indicative costs of the joint summary (£750k) and agreed that costs should be divided between the GLA and functional bodies on the basis of 'equal cost for equal space'. Members also agreed a maximum cost of £150k for the MPA contribution to the joint summary and delegated approval of spend to the Oversight Panel.

8. On 21 February 2001 GLA officers presented functional bodies with a revised format for the joint summary. GLA officers also proposed that the joint summary should be distributed with or within a 16-page newsletter prepared and funded by the GLA and functional bodies.

9. The rationale for distributing a newsletter was based partly on a perceived need to provide households with more contextual information about the GLA and functional bodies than was planned to be included in the joint summary. The newsletter is also to be the first of a series planned by the Mayor and the GLA to publicise the Assembly's activities and achievements.

10. GLA officers estimate the total cost (excluding translation costs) of the new approach at £690k. The GLA would pay £190k and each functional body would pay £125k. (For comparison, the MPS spent approximately £135k printing / distributing last year's plan and summary.)

11. A breakdown of costs for the summary and the newsletter has been requested from the GLA and it is intended to provide this information as a verbal update at the meeting.

12. Functional bodies were asked to confirm agreement to the new approach and the funding protocol by 2 March 2001. Consequently, the view of the Oversight Panel was sought at its meeting on 28 February and three options were considered:

• contribute to the newsletter and joint summary as suggested by the GLA;
• contribute to the joint summary as previously agreed but do not contribute to the newsletter (either in terms of content or cost);
• seek to address GLA concerns about the readability of the summary by, for example, including two more introductory pages.

13. Whilst the Panel supported many of the proposed formatting changes it did not support the need for a covering newsletter (Option A) on the basis that:

• the joint summary needed to be a stand-alone document;
• the newsletter and joint summary would compete for attention (with the risk that the summary – as an insert – would be more likely to be thrown away unread);
• it seemed unlikely that a 16-page summary needed a 16-page introduction;
• MPA members had not approved expenditure on a GLA family newsletter and would want to consider the merits and content of such a document.

14. The Panel concluded that perceived problems with the format of the joint summary should be addressed by improving that format rather than preparing a whole new document. Consequently the Oversight Panel requested that Option C - distribute the joint summary as a stand-alone document, perhaps with an extended two-page introduction - be recommended to the full Authority.

Programme of best value reviews

15. The Authority is obliged to review all its functions over a five-year period (starting 2000/01). Further, the Authority (as part of its policing and best value performance plan for 2001/02) must present its proposed programme of reviews.

16. The programme of best value reviews at Appendix 2 was developed initially by the best value sub-group and approved by the FPBV Committee on 19 December. FPBV Committee approved the programme of reviews subject to further work to:

• define the scope of a review related to 'managing information';
• establish the relationship between the proposed best value review of 'managing people' and the ongoing MPS strategic review of human resources.

17. Both these areas of work were discussed by the best value sub-group at its meeting on 1 March 2001 (chaired by Reshard Auladin).

Best value review of managing information

18. The best value sub-group noted that the review was originally due to start in 2000/01. However, the MPS' development of a new information strategy in April 2000 raised questions about the potential scope of the review causing the MPS to undertake a short study to identify the most appropriate objectives and scope.

19. The sub-group considered an MPS paper which recommended that the scope of a best value review of managing information should concentrate on 'records management'. A summary of the options considered by the sub-group is provided at Appendix 3.

20. The sub-group concluded that, although work was needed to develop and improve 'records management' in the MPA, such improvements could be brought about by work other than a best value review. Further, the sub-group concluded that the MPS information strategy should be implemented and allowed to 'bed down' before deciding which areas of business related to 'managing information' should be subject to best value review.

21. The sub-group agreed that the following recommendations should be presented to the full Authority:

• that a best value review of managing information should be scheduled provisionally for 2003/04;
• that the nature of the review of managing information should be re-considered following implementation of the MPS 'Information Strategy 2000'.

Best value review of managing people

22. The sub-group noted that the MPS had initiated work to undertake a strategic review of human resources. Three MPA members attend the review Steering Group which has now met twice. Further, the sub-group noted that the MPS planned to undertake the strategic review using the principles of best value (the four Cs) and intended to complete the work by June 2001.

23. The relationship between the MPS strategic review and the best value duty acting on the Authority was discussed at the best value programme board on 29 January 2001. It was agreed that the MPA should consider the plan for the strategic review to assess compliance with best value legislation and statutory guidelines. A summary of the options considered by the sub-group is provided at Appendix 4.

24. The sub-group concluded that the current MPS strategic review of human resources should be re-designated as a police authority best value review and that this approach should be recommended to the full Authority. The sub-group regarded the benefits of moving to full best value review status as:

• positive re-inforcement of the need to secure significant long-term improvements in the management of people;
• a clear statement of commitment and ownership of the issue, and a recognition of its importance, on the part of the police authority;
• a significant reduction in the overall cost to the authority by avoiding the need for two reviews (a strategic review followed by a fundamental best value review);
• a significant reduction in organisational and individual uncertainty (since there would only be one fundamental review within the best value five-year cycle);
• a significant reduction in the risk that the current approach would not meet best value review criteria (and assessed as such on inspection by HMIC).

25. The sub-group appreciated the fact that a move to formal best value review status could incur additional costs / time and may require some re-thinking. Compliance and good practice issues apart, the sub-group was clear that any realignment to meeting best value principles must not be process-driven and reflect the fact that the work originally started for reasons over-and-above a need to conduct a best value review.

26. Finally, the sub-group concluded that any potential delay could be minimised by the deployment of additional resources. In any event, the sub-group thought that the review ought not to finish before the appointment of the new Assistant Commissioner to head personnel in order to allow the successful candidate an opportunity to influence and own the outcome.

C. Financial implications

The Authority's contribution to preparing, printing and distribution of the summary best value performance plan has been limited to £150k. There may be additional costs in ensuring that the strategic review of human resources can be submitted as a best value review. These additional costs cannot be quantified at present but are likely to be less than the combined cost of undertaking a strategic review and a full best value review.

D. Background papers

• Home Office statutory guidelines (policing plan / best value performance plan)
  Minutes of MPA Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee (19 December 2000 and 20 February 2001)

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Derrick Norton, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Guidelines relating to the summary best value performance plan

Content of the summary

The summary should be a fair and accurate reflection of the plan and individual police authorities must decide what information to include in the summary (being best placed to know what their local communities would require).

Publication of the summary

Best value authorities must publish and distribute the summary as soon as possible after 31 March 2001. However, special arrangements have been agreed for the MPA and other functional bodies within the GLA as explained below.

The GLA requested that publication coincide with the Mayor's first annual report (in June 2001). This approach also offered the GLA and other functional bodies more time in which to prepare and distribute the summary (and, for the MPA, the option of publication with its own annual report and AGM).

Consequently, and in recognition of the unique circumstances facing the GLA family of best value authorities, DETR, the Home Office and auditors all agreed that distribution of a joint summary could occur in June 2001 (rather than as soon as possible after 31 March).

Distribution of the summary

Police authorities are expected to communicate the summary, as an advert for the full plan, to the widest possible audience without incurring disproportionate cost. There is no expectation that the summary should be distributed to every household in the area.

Appendix 2: Programme of Best Value Reviews (BVR)

(prior to decisions by MPA on 8 March 2001)

Notes:

1. Pilot best value review to report implementation plan to PSPM Committee.
2. MPA to contribute to GLA review of consultation in 2001/02 (but not repeat work)
3. Subject to decision at MPA on 8 March 2001
4. Subject to decision at MPA on 8 March 2001
5. Joint review within the GLA-family
6. Agreed 'Year 3' review (ACPO, APA and Home Office)
7. Not seen as desirable/feasible in Year 2
8. Subject to future scoping work

Appendix 3: Review of managing information

(paper presented to the best value sub-group on 1 March 2001)

Conclusion

It is considered that the best value sub-group has four basic options:

1. Endorse the recommendation in the report (ie to review 'records management');
2. Accept one of the other options suggested (but not recommended) in the report;
3. Commission further work by the MPS prior to making a decision;
4. Consider the default 'do nothing' option (eg postpone any review until implementation of the MPS information strategy is complete).

On balance it is considered that the report does not make a sufficiently strong case that a best value review of 'managing information' should be restricted in scope to a review of 'records management'. However, it is appreciated that further work may be required to improve records' management overall.

This conclusion is, in part, based on the fact that a review of 'records management' could not be a review focused on local service delivery (a point made in the report). This is one of the key criteria used by the sub-group to prioritise the order in which best value reviews are carried out.

The conclusion is also based on an assessment of the recommendations arising from the MPS' development of an information strategy (outlined in Appendix 3 of the MPS report). Those recommendations, if delivered, would go a long way in improving the management of information in the MPS and, as such, reduce the need for further review at this time.

Consequently, a final decision to undertake a best value review in the area of 'managing information' could wait until the results / benefits of the information strategy are clearer. In this way a decision can be made on actual progress and improvements rather than planned progress and estimated benefits. Members are advised:

That a best value review of managing information should not be undertaken next year (ie 2001/02); and

That a decision to conduct a review of managing information should be re-assessed following implementation of the MPS Information Strategy 2000.

The view of the sub-group will influence the programme of best value reviews to be presented formally to the Authority on 8 March as part of an MPS paper describing the 2001/02 policing and performance plan.

Derrick Norton
21 February 2001

Appendix 4: Review of Managing People

(paper presented to the best value sub-group on 1 March 2001)

Conclusion

In advance of feedback from HMIC the PID* has raised some concerns as to the overall compliance with best value principles. However, on the information at hand none of these concerns are 'fatal' and ought to be capable of being addressed.

*Project Initiation Document (the blueprint and plan for a project)

This will obviously require some additional work but it is unclear (from the PID) whether or not the work could be completed to best value review standards in the timescale desired by the MPS and with the number/type of resources currently available to the project.

On the basis that the timescale is fixed then it might be necessary to use additional resources to ensure completion to time and quality (eg greater input from the best value programme support team and/or MPS consultancy group). This 're-alignment' to meeting best value principles should not be process-driven and must reflect the fact that the work originally started for reasons over-and-above a need to conduct a best value review.

Options

It is considered that the best value sub-group has three basic options:

1. Await a final report from the work before deciding whether to submit it to HMIC as a best value review (and after assessing compliance with best value principles).
2. Regard the work as a precursor to formal best value review;
3. Formally re-designate the strategic review as a police authority best value review and resolve implications accordingly.

Option 1 (await final report) has the advantage of assessing a known product (ie a completed strategic review rather than a plan). However, it is not recommended on the basis that, for want of corrective action/additional resources applied now, the opportunity to deliver a critical best value review could be lost. Part of this assessment is also based on known HMIC concerns related to 're-badging'.

Option 2 (regard as a precursor to best value review) would provide clear short-term direction. However, it is not recommended on the basis that the Authority would still need to conduct a best value review of people management at some point in the next four years. To go over much of the same ground again within that timescale would be expensive and add little value. It would also prolong organisational and individual uncertainty.

Option 3 (re-designate as a formal best value review) would be likely to incur some additional resource costs and re-thinking. Even so, the additional investment ought to pay dividends given that a fundamental best value review of managing people should deliver clear benefits to the MPS and allow the Authority to discharge its legal duty at a lower overall cost. This option is recommended.

The view of the sub-group will influence the programme of best value reviews to be presented formally to the Authority on 8 March as part of an MPS paper describing the 2001/02 policing and performance plan.

Catherine Crawford
21 February 2001

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback