Programme best of value reviews 2001/02-2004/05

Report: 5
Date: 19 December 2000
By: Clerk

Summary

This paper describes a programme of best value reviews for the period 2001/02 - 2004/05. The programme was developed by the Best Value Sub-group and Members of FPBV Committee are asked to approve the programme of reviews for the next four years.

A. Supporting information

Background

1. The Local Government Act 1999 (Part 1: Best Value) places a duty on police authorities to review all their functions over a five-year period. The agreed programme of best value reviews (BVR) must be published annually as part of an authority’s statutory Policing and Performance Plan.

2. The MPS initiated a non-statutory five-year programme of reviews in April 2000 and, at its meeting on 17 October, FPBV Committee agreed that the Best Value Sub-group (Reshard Auladin, Richard Barnes, Cecile Lothian and Richard Sumray) should review that programme. This approach was taken since Members agreed that a small informal group would be better placed to consider matters of detail. The Committee also agreed that the Sub-group should follow the process used by the MPS in establishing the initial programme.

3. Members of the Sub-group met with MPA and MPS officers on 13 November and on 6 December for two half-day sessions. An overview of the process used to review the programme is provided at Appendix 1. In summary, the Sub-group developed an initial sequence of reviews by rating each BVR against six criteria:

• strategic importance to the organisation;
• current performance of the business area;
• views of external partners on the need to review;
• scale of resources in the business are under review;
• potential to address ‘cross-cutting’ issues;
• extent to which the business area had been subject to recent review.

4. The results of the initial rating procedure are attached at Appendix 2. The Sub-group then proceeded to assess whether or not the type or sequence of reviews should change in the light of other information, for example:

• views expressed by the Oversight Panel during work to consider the overall format and content of the Policing and Performance Plan 2001/02;
• Proposals from the Mayor’s office for GLA-family reviews of ‘equalities and diversity’ plus ‘consultation and engagement’ in 2001/02.

5. The Sub-group concluded that there should be a balance each year between reviews of ‘operational’ areas and reviews of ‘support’ areas. The reasons for this conclusion included:

• views of the Audit Commission that BVR programmes should aim to direct resources to where the greatest impact will be felt locally;
• the recognition that public concerns relate primarily to areas of operational business (notwithstanding public concerns over, for example, recruitment and retention);
• the need not to overload any single area of business (operational or support) at the expense of overall performance.

6. At the end of the second meeting the Sub-group agreed a programme of reviews to be recommended to FPBV Committee (attached at Appendix 3). The Sub-group noted that developing the proposed programme had required long and detailed discussions on a wide range of issues. Consequently, the Sub-group asked that the covering report place the proposed review programme in context.

Context of the proposed review programme

7. The most important fact to bear in mind in considering the review programme attached at Appendix 3 is that there is no right answer. The complexity of issues that need to be addressed in selecting a review programme is such that a truly objective outcome is not possible.

8. At the same time District Audit, in their annual audit of the Policing and Performance Plan, will wish to understand the rationale for selection even though some decisions may be subjective. For example, a review programme based simply on ‘votes’ would probably be criticised even though it was fair.

9. Consequently, the proposed programme is a balance between different constraints and different views expressed by members of the Best Value Sub-group. FPBV Committee will wish to consider the Sub-group’s proposals but, it is neither practicable nor necessarily desirable to bring to the Committee’s attention all the detailed information available to, or discussed by, the Sub-group.

10. Finally, it is important to note that decisions relating to the BVR programme typically concern the order in which reviews are carried out not whether a review is carried out at all. The MPA is obliged to review all MPS functions and a decision to review a particular function later in the programme certainly does not rule out earlier improvements in the business area being made (subject to integration of and co-ordination between best value review and other improvement processes).

Proposals for specific reviews in specific years

11. As described above, the Mayor’s office would like to see joint GLA-family reviews of ‘equalities and diversity’ plus ‘consultation and engagement’ in 2001/02. This view complements the requirement in statutory guidelines to conduct ‘cross-cutting’ reviews. Overall, the Sub-group agreed that any MPA/MPS resources put into joint working must be commensurate with the likely benefits. In any event the Sub-group recognised that joint reviews of cross-cutting issues were new areas of work for all concerned and, as such, all parties should progress matters carefully.

Equalities and diversity

12, The Sub-group noted that the GLA and other functional bodies had independently decided to review ‘equalities and diversity’ in 2001/02. The Sub-group concluded that the MPA should, in principle, participate in a joint review provided:

• The objectives and scope of the joint review reflected the work done (and progress achieved) by the MPS over recent years;
• Decisions regarding the practicalities of joint review were made in partnership (eg structures, processes and resources);
• The costs and likely benefits of the review were monitored by the MPA and subject to MPA decision-making and control.

Consultation and engagement

13. The Sub-group concluded that, whilst the MPA should contribute to a joint review of ‘consultation and engagement’, the extent of participation should be relatively light. The reasons for this conclusion included:

• The fact that the MPA/MPS has just conducted a review of consultation (the outcome of which recommended a significant increase in public engagement);
• The fact that, in 2001/02, crime and disorder partnerships in London would be reviewing local strategies and preparing new three-year community safety strategies for implementation in 2002/03.

14. The Sub-group questioned whether a best value review of engagement was desirable or feasible when key partners would be working hard to develop statutory crime and disorder strategies. For this reason, the Sub-group concluded that the MPA’s own review of ‘community safety and engagement’ would need to take place after 2001/02.

15. The Sub-group thought that MPA/MPS involvement should primarily take place at the beginning of the work (eg to explain the MPA/MPS approach to the topic) and at the end (eg to assess where the MPA’s new consultation strategy could be improved). A ‘watching brief’ could be maintained during the rest of the work.

Training

16. The Sub-group noted that both ACPO and the APA had reached an agreement with the Home Office for a best value review of training to be carried out in Year 3 of all police authority review programmes (ie starting 2002/03).

Status of reviews for 2001/02

17. The proposed programme attached at Appendix 3 includes a reference (in Year 2) to a review of ‘managing information’ and a review of ‘managing people’. Both these business areas are subject to ongoing scoping work within the MPS and discussion with HMIC and the Audit Commission. Consequently, decisions on their place within the overall programme may need to be taken in principle.

Managing information

18. This topic was included as a 2000/01 review in the MPS’ initial programme. Since then work has been undertaken to develop an information strategy for the MPS and this work has implications for best value review. The Best Value Programme Board (attended by Reshard Auladin) decided that the scope of any BVR should be clarified before making a decision as to whether or not a review should be started in 2001. The MPS estimate that the scoping work will report in January 2001.

Managing people

19. The MPS (with member involvement) has initiated a review of the human resource function. Work is ongoing to assess the implications for the best value review programme. Again, it is estimated that the scoping work will be reporting in the New Year. This timescale still leaves time for the MPA’s final programme of reviews to be published in the Policing and Performance Plan in March 2001.

B. Recommendations

1. In principle agreement should be given to MPA / MPS participation in a GLA-family best value review of ‘equalities and diversity’ starting 2001/02.
2. The MPA /MPS contribute to the proposed GLA-family review of ‘consultation and engagement’ but that the MPA’s own best value review of ‘community safety and engagement’ is conducted after 2001/02.
3. The programme of best value reviews at Appendix 3 is approved (subject to the outcome of work to scope the proposed best value review of ‘managing information’ and work to assess the relationship between a best value review of ‘managing people’ and the review of the human resource function).

C. Financial implications

The financial implications cannot be quantified at this time. However, on the basis that each best value review is conducted along project management good practice then the financial implications will be available at the start of each review and monitored regularly.

D. Review arrangements

A Project Board will monitor the progress of each best value review overseen by a Programme Board reporting to FPBV Committee. MPA Members are represented at all three management levels.

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 Derrick Norton.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback