The approach to challenge in best value reviews

Report: 11
Date: 19 September 2000
By: Commissioner

Summary

This paper sets out the requirements under best value to challenge the services that are provided by a best value authority, the way they are provided and by whom they are provided. It proposes a set of principles that should govern the meeting of those requirements and exemplifies how those principles can be translated into options for providing the challenge element to best value reviews.

A. Supporting information

1. The Local Government Act 1999 introduced the concept of a structured approach to achieving best value in public services and set out what a best value authority will be required to do.

2. The definition of best value in the Act is ‘to secure continuous improvement in the way in which they (the Authority) exercise their functions having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness’.

3. The Act requires best value authorities to conduct best value reviews of their functions, part of which should be to consider: whether it should be exercising the function; the level at which and the way in which it should be exercising the function; and its objectives in relation to the exercise of the function.

4. In summary, the requirement is to challenge the why, how and by whom a service is being provided.

5. Further background information is at Appendix A.

Initial approach of the MPS

6. The MPS guidelines on conducting a best value review use the various pieces of national guidance available as a basis and identify a role for independent reviewer(s), which includes taking a customer focused approach and looking at the extent to which the needs of hard to reach groups in particular are being addressed.

7. The need for independent challenge to ensure the most thorough approach to conducting a best value review was recognised from the start. For the consultation best value review, for example, it was considered necessary to challenge what consultation takes place and how and who does it, acknowledging that some consultation is required under statute e.g. Crime and Disorder Act for the police service and partners, and the Local Government Act for best value authorities (including police authorities).

8. It was decided that an independent panel made up of members with expertise in the field of consultation would provide an appropriate level of challenge. The challenge would be informed by the panel members’ practical experience of commissioning, conducting and using the results of consultation in a range of settings to ensure that the strategy provides for truly effective consultation.

Views of the Members of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach (CDO) Committee

9. This approach to challenge was discussed at a workshop of the CDO Committee. While Members supported the concept of independent challenge, they expressed some concerns about the proposed composition of the panel. A paper submitted to the Chair’s Co-ordination and Urgency Committee on 14 July 2000 set out the concerns and the arrangements to be put in place to allay those concerns. The paper was agreed and the panel has been reconstituted accordingly.

10. The Committee also decided that proposals for meeting the challenge element in all future best value reviews would be put to the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee (FPBV) to agree an approach.

Proposals for meeting the challenge element

11. The FPBV Committee has already agreed that MPA Members will play a leading role in each of the best value reviews. 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.

12. Therefore, one of the means of meeting the challenge element is the role of Members within each of the reviews who will question existing and proposed activity and take a customer focused approach to assessing the extent to which the needs of customers are being addressed.

13. However, to demonstrate the MPA’s commitment to achieving continuous improvement and recognising challenge as a key to doing so, it is proposed that each review should also subject its work to the scrutiny of independent challenge, over and above that provided by the MPA lead Member.

14. It should be remembered also that each review will also have an extensive programme of consultation with Londoners, stakeholders and other interested parties about the services provided and the way in which they are delivered.

15. It is considered that independent challenge within a best value review will need to be delivered in such a way as to meet the specific requirements of a particular review and therefore it is proposed that we do not set out only one way of providing independent challenge.

16. The purpose of challenge may be met by involving individuals with different skills, knowledge and experience, for example those with expert knowledge in a particular field, those who receive the service, peers from other police forces and those who deliver similar services in a non-police environment and have experience to share. These individuals could form one or more panels or provide review as individuals in addition to a panel.

17. The approach proposed in the paper therefore is that the MPA set out principles for providing independent challenge, which would be met by any process of appointing independent reviewers, including a panel where required. The paper shows options for complying with those principles that each review project board can consider to determine which option(s) would best meet the needs of the review.

Principles to be met

18. In meeting the requirements for independent challenge, each review will demonstrate that the approach accords with the agreed principles in that it is: focused on the questions of whether a service should be provided, the level at which, and the way in which, it is provided and what the objectives are in relation to the provision of the service;

• able to demonstrate that the most appropriate way of selecting independent reviewers has been used;
• transparent to internal and external audiences in the way that it works;
• appropriate to the service under review;
• complementary to the consultation process that will be used;
• of sufficient depth and breadth to show commitment to the concept of challenge as the key to continuous improvement;
• cognisant of the need for due regard to diversity and equality;
• effective in its use of members of existing representative groups if appropriate;
• effective in its use of internal and external expertise in the service under review;
• and auditable.

19. The purpose of challenge will be to question whether a service should be provided and, if so, how best to do so, or to question whether the delivery meets the needs of customers in terms of cost and standards.

20. The purpose of such an independent challenge is not to ensure that the review process meets the requirements of best value, or considers diversity issues explicitly; those requirements will be met by the quality assurance process embedded in the best value programme. (The MPS guidelines which currently refer to the reviewer(s) ensuring the review addresses equality issues and satisfies best value principles will be amended to stress that these activities are part of a quality assurance role, not part of a challenge role.)

21. Because each review will also have an extensive consultation plan to ensure that the views of all appropriate representative groups are sought and taken into account in the review, it should be stated that the purpose of challenge is not specifically to gather the views of representative Londoners.

22. Each review will set out how the defined purpose and the principles for achieving challenge will be met

Options for identifying independent reviewers/panel members

23. Options set out in Appendix B show how independent reviewers or panel members may be identified.

24. The options are not mutually exclusive. A panel may include members with a range of backgrounds and experience as appropriate to meeting the need for challenge in a best value review.

25. Specifically however, the FPBV Committee may wish to consider whether Option 4 - creating a pool of potential panel members - should form part of the overall approach. That option would need to be managed by the Core Best Value Team in liaison with the review teams.

Conclusion

26. The options show how the principles for meeting the requirements for independent challenge can be met through the different approaches to setting up a panel or appointing an independent reviewer.

27. It is essential that each review takes an approach that meets these principles in the most effective way, just as it is essential to recognise that each review is covering a different service and therefore approaches may need to vary between reviews.

B. Recommendations

1. That the FPBV Committee confirms that Members of the MPA provide challenge and customer focus to each review;
2. That each review should subject its work to independent challenge over and above that provided by the MPA lead Member;
3. That principles for meeting the requirements for independent challenge are agreed as set out in this paper;
4. That the FPBV Committee consider the merits of the range of options in Appendix B and in particular whether Option 4 should form part of the overall approach; and
5. That each review be required to set out, for review by the appropriate level in the best value management structure, how the defined purpose of challenge will be met, taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen option(s) in relation to the principles to be met.

C. Financial implications

The options chosen for meeting the challenge element will determine the financial implications. Options 3 and 4 have potential cost implications. Expenses for those taking part in the challenge element will always have to be paid; some independent reviewers and panel members may be paid an appropriate rate for their time, as are the members of the MPS Independent Advisory Groups.

D. Review arrangements

The approach to the challenge element would be reviewed after 12 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 officers 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 A: Background information

HMIC inspection process

HMIC will inspect reviews conducted by the MPS within the duty of best value which rests with the MPA. Their process sets out the questions they will ask under the challenge element which include:

• who is the service for?
• does the service address national objectives?
• are resulting proposed changes likely to lead to a more efficient and focused service?

Proposals for challenge need therefore to ensure that such questions are considered alongside those set out in the Act.

Guidance available on the challenge element

The DETR circular 10/99 views challenge as the key to significant improvements in performance and proposes that it requires a fundamental rethink about the needs that each service is intended to address and the method of procurement that is used.

The guide that is used by the Audit Commission to audit best value performance plans sets out a series of questions such as whether the authority has an approved approach to challenge, does it include questioning the need for the service, have all possible providers and partners been considered and is there a rigorous appraisal of options. The guide stresses the need for dialogue with potential partners to help with challenge.

The CIPFA guidelines also offers a range of questions to test the approach. CIPFA go on to suggest bringing in independent and objective views to the application of and responses to the challenge questions - through involving officers from outside the service, external referees or facilitators or subjecting the responses to scrutiny by member or officer panels.

Approach by other police forces

District Audit has been able to advise that they have found that other forces are approaching the challenge element by setting up challenge days run by central best value teams or setting up panels with police authority members, local authority members, independent external experts and peers in other forces/industry/business.

It has not been possible however for District Audit to advise on how the members of panels etc have been identified.

Appendix B: Options for setting up a challenge panel or identifying independent reviewers

Option 1

Invite members of existing advisory groups to form a panel

• Strengths: Quicker to identify panel members, little cost in identifying members, have knowledge of the MPS already, formation of advisory groups based on diversity principles.
• Weaknesses: Method of appointment to advisory groups not transparent, may not have knowledge of service under review or expertise in the area, audit trail may not be sufficient.

Option 2

Combine members of existing advisory groups with experts in the area under review

• Strengths: As option 1, and provides expert knowledge in the area under review
• Weaknesses: As option 1

Option 3

Advertise for panel members (as for independent members of the MPA) for each review

• Strengths: Transparent to internal and external audiences, advert targeted to each review, can address diversity and equality, appropriate expertise in the area under review obtained if sought in advert, auditable
• Weaknesses: Response unpredictable and may not meet requirements, resources required to deliver higher than other options - cost of appointing independent members of MPA was £43,000 and it occupied one member of staff full time for 6 months with some help, need for members to be available to conduct selection process

Option 4

Advertise for panel members (as for independent members of the MPA) to create a pool to be drawn upon for each review

• Strengths: As option 3 but not targeted to each review, would save cost and time over option 3
• Weaknesses: As option 3, people in the pool would only be used when service under review which may be some time from when they express an interest

Option 5

Invite key groups (eg MPA, GLA, Home Office, Audit Commission, HMIC) to nominate

• Strengths: Would have knowledge of best value, would have a keen interest in the reviews delivering,
• Weaknesses: May not provide expertise in the area under review, some may decline because of a need to remain independent of the best value process

Option 6

Seek nominations from professional bodies and/or other external bodies who perform similar/related functions

• Strengths: Will have expertise in the subject area, provide a different perspective, able to tap into private sector approach,
• Weaknesses: May lack knowledge of London, costs unknown until individuals/bodies identified though likely there will be enthusiasm to participate.

Option 7

Invite other police forces (national/international)/local authorities to nominate (could be linked to option 6)

• Strengths: Expertise in the subject area, experience of areas under review, awareness of best value process, knowledge of London issues in local authority members, the MPS/MPAA can contribute to others reviews in return and gain good practice
• Weaknesses: May be seen as too close to the area under review

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback