Implementation of best value

Report: 7
Date: 20 July 2000
By: Commissioner

Summary

The Local Government Act 1999 places the duty of best value on police authorities. The MPA assumed this duty from 3 July. In preparation for that legislative duty, the MPS developed an approach to the implementation of best value and prepared a five year review programme. The MPA will wish in the future to consider the content of that programme overall. The report sets out the structure that is currently in place for the management of the programme and the current position on each of the reviews that are underway. Views are sought on a future management structure including involvement of MPA Members and a structure for consultation with staff associations.

A. Supporting information

Existing management structure

1. Each of the Year One best value reviews is set up as a project, within the best value programme, reporting to a Project Board chaired by the Project Director. Project Directors and review team leaders are shown in Appendices 1-5 which set out the current position in relation to each of the current Best Value Reviews. The Project Director for each review is a Management Board member.

2. The role of the Programme Board is to monitor, oversee and co-ordinate the programme overall. It is chaired by the MPS Best Value Programme Manager and consists of two borough commanders, the MPA Interim Deputy Clerk and representatives from Specialist Operations; Corporate Development Group (Efficiency Planning); Personnel Department; Finance Directorate; Internal Audit; and Quality Performance Policy Unit.

3. The role of the Steering Group is to provide overall direction in the implementation of best value and to ensure statutory requirements are met. It is chaired by the Deputy Commissioner and consists of Assistant Commissioners Territorial Policing and Performance, Review and Standards; Deputy Assistant Commissioners Inspection and Review, and Territorial Policing; Director of Personnel; Director of Resources; Director of Corporate Development; and the MPA Interim Clerk. The membership of the Steering Group includes all Project Directors to show MPS top level commitment to the delivery of best value

4. The relationship between these formal bodies is shown at Appendix 6. There are currently no formal arrangements in place for consultation with staff associations.

Future management structure

5. The structure set out above was put in place to manage best value until the MPA assumed the duty on 3 July. The Finance, Planning and Best Value (FPBV) Committee will wish to decide the future management structure for the Programme overall. Proposals for consideration are set out below.

Sub-group of Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee

6. In order to manage the duty of best value, the FPBV Committee may wish to appoint about three members to form a sub-group. The current structure for the overall management of best value would, as a consequence, need to be reviewed to provide the structure for the longer term. However, it is proposed that the current structure is maintained in the interim, with the addition of the sub-group, the members of which would work with MPS representatives to propose a revised structure to the FPBV Committee for the September meeting. The proposals below are, therefore, regarded as interim arrangements.

Best Value Steering Group

7. The FPBV Committee may wish to select a Member to join this Group. On that basis, it is proposed that the Interim Clerk withdraws.

Best Value Programme Board

8. The FPBV Committee may wish to nominate the lead MPA officer to join this Board. On that basis it is proposed that the Interim Deputy Clerk withdraws.

Best value reviews

9. The MPS anticipated that MPA Members will play a leading role in the reviews and the Chair of the MPA has stated that each review will be led by a member of the Authority. The independence of MPA members from the day-to-day workings of the process under review places them in a good position to question how and why things are done and the background and experience of Members in other fields may be particularly useful in determining how alternative service providers could be used. A major role anticipated for Members within each of the reviews is therefore one of challenge and taking a customer focused approach to assess the extent to which the needs of customers are being addressed.

10. It is proposed that the FPBV Committee nominate one or more MPA Members, from a related MPA Committee where appropriate, to play this leading role for each of the reviews.

11. The role of MPA Members will be considered by the FPBV Committee. However, if the role of the MPA member proposed above is adopted, it is also proposed that the current arrangement whereby a member of MPS Management Board is the Project Director and chairs the Project Board remains in place to continue to demonstrate clear, top level commitment from the MPS to the implementation of best value and the pursuit of continuous improvement.

Consultation with staff associations

12. The views of the Superintendents Association, Police Federation and Trade Union Side have been sought on the way in which they are involved in the best value programme.

13. The stated preference of the Superintendents Association is membership of each of the review project boards. In meeting this preference, the opportunity would also need to be extended to the Federation and Trade Union Side (TUS) which would add 3/4 extra people to each project board (TUS may seek non-industrial and industrial representation).

14. The preference of the Federation is to have a ‘full seat’ on a consultative forum that has review team leaders and other key personnel as members. They also seek copies of all paperwork.

15. The TUS preference is for a consultative forum, with the opportunity for deeper involvement in specific reviews with the greatest potential impact on members (eg Catering). They have concerns about a joint consultative forum as they feel the police staff associations may have a different focus from themselves.

16. The MPS is setting up a consultative forum to include representatives from a wide range of groups to develop understanding and participation in managing change in the MPS. This group will be co-ordinated by the Director of Corporate Development.

17. It is proposed that a sub-group of that forum is formed to focus on best value. A specific group will be necessary particularly when issues of challenge and competition need to be considered.

B. Recommendations

1. A sub-group on best value of three members should be appointed;
2. That the nominated Member joins the Best Value Steering Group and the Interim Clerk withdraws;
3. The nominated lead officer joins the Best Value Programme Board and the Interim Deputy Clerk withdraws;
4. The FPBV Committee nominate one or more MPA members to play a leading role in each best value review;
5. That MPS Management Board members retain the role of internal Project Director and chair of the Project Board; and
6. That a sub-group of the consultative forum referred to above is set up to ensure full and effective consultation with the staff associations. The sub group should be a joint police and civil staff forum and the terms of reference should reflect the emphasis that each party will have in respect of best value reviews.

C. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications.

D. Review arrangements

The MPA may wish to review these arrangements in six months.

E. Background papers

The following is a statutory list of background papers (under the Local Government Act 1972 S.100 D) which disclose facts or matters on which the report is based and which have been relied on to a material extent in preparing this report. They are available on request to either the contact officer listed below or to the Clerk to the Police Authority at the address indicated on the agenda.

None.

F. Contact details

The author of this report is Diana Marchant.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Best value review of consultation - update at 13 July 2000

• Project Director - Assistant Commissioner Anderson Dunn
• Project Manager - Anne Wheeler
• Deputy Director CIS Consultancy Group MPS
• Review Team Leader - Georgina Barnes
• MPA Strand Leader - Sultan Taylor

Stage 1

• Scoping study conducted.
• Initial stakeholder analysis undertaken.
• Project Board formed and Terms of Reference agreed.
• Initial Terms of Reference for Independent Challenge Panel proposed.
• Changes required to proposed arrangements following MPA Consultation, Diversity and Outreach (CDO) Committee workshop.
• Revised proposals to the MPA Co-ordinating Committee on 14 July.
• Communication/consultation programme and communication implementation plan developed.
• Risk management exercise undertaken and risk register developed.

Stage 2

• Summary of formal/legal requirements to consult.
• Execution of communication implementation plan - individuals informed about project through meetings, letters or presentations.
• Audit of current consultation processes undertaken:
  • Information collected from PIB3 Research and Survey Unit on Public Attitude Survey, Customer Satisfaction Surveys, ‘Survey of surveys’;
  • Other consultation for Annual Policing Plan;
  • Questionnaire to all BOCUs and Local Authorities about local consultation;
  • Questionnaire to all PCCG Chairs.
• Relevant literature reviewed; summary statements extracted and presented in a Visio influence diagram.
• Costs of consultation identified where available.

Stage 3

• Detailed stakeholder analysis undertaken.
• Consultation implementation plan developed identifying stakeholders project must consult with and mechanisms for doing so.
• Summary papers prepared on different consultation processes in existence in the MPS.

Stage 4

• Visits made to 8 UK Forces/Authorities and 1 international Force to compare types of consultation undertaken elsewhere. Reports made of all visits, and key findings summarised in a spreadsheet.
• Plans for consultation with internal stakeholders being developed:
  • Structured Debrief to be held with sample of Borough Liaison Officers (6/7/00);
  • Focus group to be held with sample of Borough Commanders (28/7/00);
  • 5 focus groups to be held with MPS personnel with key roles in consultation (e.g. Community Safety Unit officers, CO24, BPA, Fed/Unions, PIB).
• Plans for consultation with external stakeholders being developed:
  • MVA to undertake 1000 public surveys across 3 boroughs, followed up with focus groups of a small cross-representative sample;
  • MVA to conduct small number of one-to-one interviews with individuals from ‘hard-to-reach’ groups (e.g. young people under 16, homeless, refugees);
  • Two workshops to be held with PCCG Chairs and PCCG Administrators;
  • Project Team to hold focus groups with key individuals from ‘representative’ bodies (e.g. Residents’ Association, Neighbourhood Watch, Age Concern, Shelter, CRE, LABTA).
• Plans for ongoing consultation with key stakeholder group (inc. GLA, ALG, Home Office, APA) throughout July and August.
• Presentation given to MPA members. Further presentation to CDO Committee members given on 11 July planned for GLA members on 14 July.

The first work in progress report was completed by 7 July 2000 and submitted to the Chair and members of the CDO Committee and Best Value Steering Group.

Appendix 2: Best value review of crime management - update at 13 July 2000

• Project Director - Assistant Commissioner Ian Johnston
• Review Team Leader - Detective Chief Superintendent John Bates

Stage 1

• Review leader identified and scoping team in place by 15 May.
• Project Management support from CIS Consultancy Group in place.
• PID for scoping study produced and agreed.
• Project Board formed and terms of reference agreed.
• Models produced through scoping the review have been validated through consultation with internal stakeholders and practitioners to go to Project Board on 30 June 2000.
• Terms of reference for user groups prepared and chairs identified.
• Initial proposals for an Independent Challenge Panel agreed by Project Board. Further consideration to be given in the light of required changes to the consultation review independent challenge panel.
• Senior officers within the organisation have been asked to identify related work. In addition, an internal notice to inform all staff has been prepared.
• Training in project management and process mapping has been arranged for review team member.

Stage 2

• A comprehensive list of current and recent work in the MPS that falls within the remit of the review is being developed

Appendix 3: Best value review of combating bureaucracy and managing information - update at 13 July 2000

• Project Director - Deputy Commissioner

This review is planned to start in July 2000.

• Early work in advance of the review being set up is shown below:
  • Focus groups on pinch points held last week as arranged; outcomes produced by CIS Consultancy Group on 30 June and submitted to BV Programme Manager and Review Team Leader. To be discussed with Director of Information on 17 July.
  • Andersen Consulting selected as the preferred bidders to deliver a new Information Strategy to the MPS subject to negotiations on some elements of the contract. Their approach would also deliver a best value review of the Information Strategy element of managing information.
• Commander Dick Cullen appointed as review team leader.
• Tony Williams (Consultant, former lay HMI and former Human Resources Director, World Bank) approached by the Deputy Commissioner with a view to involvement in the independent element of the review. Arrangements to take into account the required changes to the consultation review challenge panel.

Appendix 4: Pilot best value review of complaints, discipline and anti-corruption functions - position at 13 July 2000

• Project Director - Assistant Commissioner Anderson Dunn

Introduction

This pilot review was set up in October 1999 following the appointment of a new Director of the Complaints Investigation Bureau (CIB) and the direction from the then Deputy Commissioner to create a Professional Standards Directorate.

As the pilot, it followed a different review process from the one outlined in the Best Value Review Guidelines that were constructed having learnt lessons from this pilot.

The drivers for this review were:

• structures that did not clearly identify functional responsibilities and roles therefore leading to a lack of clarity around issues of command and leadership
• the lack of an overall strategy for complaints investigation within the MPS, with working practices creating duplication of effort
• resources being over-stretched in some areas and under-employed in others
• inconsistent decision making across the MPS
• recent guidance received within the HMI Thematic on ‘Police Integrity’.

The overarching aims of the review are:

• To achieve consistency of decision making across the MPS
• To have a more accountable, flatter senior management structure commensurate with the volume and complexity of work, legislative and regulatory requirement
• To have clear lines of command and leadership, and
• To achieve management 'on-cost' savings.

Key findings from the review

Adopt a more holistic approach to professional standards failure
The current organisational structure of ACUs and CIB creates an approach which, at times, is fragmented and uncoordinated. A more holistic approach to 'professional standards failures' is required along with the implementation of a new organisational structure.

Process improvement
Working practices and processes vary so much across the MPS that duplication and gaps in service provision are common place and impact on timeliness. Process improvement is required to increase customer satisfaction.

Achieve a long term reduction in complaints through raising professional standards
There is no overall strategy for complaint investigation within the MPS. This reduces the MPS's ability to set and achieve complaint reduction targets and raise professional standards. The Directorate should have, and adhere to, a strategy to achieve a long-term reduction in complaints through raising professional standards and addressing related cultural issues.

Develop staff within the department
The training and development of staff has been neglected and therefore needs addressing.

Projected activity
A number of priority activities are currently being progressed:

• Piloting of new investigative team structure (review Nov 2000)
  • Projected potential savings of new model £250,000.
  • Incremental reviews and pan London transitional process at 3, 6 and 12 months.
• Learning lab process with Cabinet Office, Home Office, Police Complaints Authority, and Crown Prosecution Service.
• Review of legislation to establish opportunity for challenge.
• Screening, grading and weighting mechanism being worked on.
• Training regime being worked up.
• Customer satisfaction and communication strategies be worked up.
• Performance indicators being worked up

Summary of the work done during the review

Consultation
A wide ranging consultation exercise has taken place involving both external and internal stakeholders. Consultation has taken place with:

• complainants
• members of the public to determine their perceptions and expectations of the police complaint handling process through a series of discussion groups
• police officers that had been the subject of complaints
• solicitors with experience of representing complainants or officers complained against
• representatives of lay groups and lay advisors
• external stakeholders such as the Police Complaints Authority, HMIC, Crown Prosecution Service, Home Office and Cabinet office
• Lancashire Constabulary and other police forces
• managers with responsibility for complaints, discipline and anti-corruption matters
• ACPO officers with responsibility for Inspection and Review matters
• the Police Federation and the Superintendents’ Association
• MPS staff - their views on the anti-corruption work being undertaken by the MPS have been captured through a separate exercise.

Comparison
The main elements of comparison carried out during the review were:

• a comparison of the level of complaints in the MPS with all other Forces in England and Wales
• cost, workload and performance comparisons across MPS Area Complaints Unit
• high level cost and performance comparisons between the complaints and discipline functions in the MPS and six other Forces (South Wales, West Midlands, Thames Valley, South Yorkshire, Northumbria)
• more high level comparisons between police complaints handling processes and those employed by other organisations e.g. Hackney Council and the General Medical Council

To enable more detailed comparisons to be made, the following analysis was subsequently carried out by CIB

• data collection to gauge the volume and complexity of work, skills profiles, training needs and sickness levels;
• 'process mapping' to identify the variations in working practices and best practice; and
• 'gap analysis' to identify areas falling short of service delivery standards and/or regulatory requirements.

A review of processes adopted for complaint handling (initial receipt of complaints), customer services and customer satisfaction surveys by the external bodies shown has also been subsequently carried out with:

• British Airways.
• Birmingham City Council.
• City of Portsmouth Council.
• Nat West.
• Lancashire and other police forces.

Challenge
The functions under review have been challenged in a number of ways:

• comprehensive consultation with direct customers and other stakeholders to identify their requirements, what needs to change and challenge how the services are provided
• independent external challenge from Dr Ben Bowling to comment on emerging findings and suggest further work. Also subsequently from Maggie Mansell (MPC) and Dr Ian McKenzie (University of Portsmouth).
• with managers of the functions under review to capture their views on whether potential exists for the function to be provided in other ways.
• at a more detailed level, the ongoing process mapping is examining the functions undertaken and identifying appropriate skill levels and ranks/grades of staff.

Competition
The restrictions imposed by the current legislation (including police regulations) governing the police’s handling of complaints & discipline prevent many options for increased competition from being pursued (for example the complete transfer of the MPS complaints & discipline function to an external agency). A Home Office commissioned study has examined the feasibility of an independent system for investigating complaints against the police. Two possible models have been proposed.

In the longer term changes to the police complaints system at a national level will determine how the MPS complaints & discipline function develops. In the short to medium term the potential for increasing independence in the process and the role played by non-police officers needs to be explored and developed in line with long tern national developments. In the short term, savings are expected to be achieved through structural changes and by bringing the complaints, discipline and anti-corruption functions together under a single command.

Process and workload analysis

A review of processes, comparative workloads and costing with other police forces, public services and identified potential private sector companies by

• data collection - to gauge the volume and complexity of work, skills profiles, training needs and sickness levels;
• process mapping - to identify the variations in working practices and best practice. To identify the costs of each process and to assess the efficiency and effectiveness in each area by reviewing the rank and grades employed against the measurable outputs of each activity;
• assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the models proposed by the Home Office review on police complaints for independent investigation;

Projected activity

Consultation with stakeholders.

• Learning lab process referred to above.
• ‘market testing’ based on the results of ongoing analysis for the consideration of
  • civilian investigative roles
  • outsourcing of certain investigative activities i.e. surveillance to acquire evidence in minor but potential misconduct investigations which could lead to dismissal.

The final product from this review will be a 3-year Development Plan for the new Department which identifies the improvement activity that will take place and set targets. As indicated above, work has already begun on some of the priority improvement areas (for example, the development of customer satisfaction mechanisms).

Milestones

A unified command will be in place by 1 October, bringing together the area and central units. The structure for the Command Team has been agreed and recruitment is underway.

Data collection and process mapping will be completed by 1 October.

An implementation plan will be prepared, supported by the appointment of a Change Manager.

Appendix 5: Current MPS management structure for best value

Steering Group chaired by Deputy Commissioner

Programme Board chaired by Programme Manager

• BVR of Complaints, Discipline and Anti-corruptuion Project Director: AC Anderson Dunn
• BVR of Consultation Project Director: AC Anderson Dunn
• BVR of Investigating & Detecting Crime Project Director: AC Ian Johnston
• BVR of Bureaucracy and Information Project Director: Dep Comm Ian Blair

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback