Management arrangements best value

Report: 4
Date: 15 May 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

This report proposes revised arrangements for managing the programme of best value reviews and related work. The opportunity has also been taken to update members on best value work being carried out nationally.

A. Recommendations

1. That members approve the revised terms of reference for a best value programme board attached at Appendix 1.
2. That members note work being conducted nationally on best value attached at Appendix 3.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Management arrangements for best value vary widely across police authorities in England and Wales. Some authorities have a full committee whilst others rely on arrangements within the police service. The arrangements currently in place for the MPA and MPS are described at Appendix 1. In summary, the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee (FPBV) oversees best value on behalf of the MPA and there are two bodies serving FPBV:

• Best value sub-group – chaired by Reshard Auladin;
• Best value programme board – chaired by Ian Blair.

2. A general consensus emerged that the roles of the two bodies could be clearer and FPBV Committee agreed that management arrangements should be reviewed.

Options

3. In January 2001 members confirmed that best value should remain within the overall scope of FPBV Committee. There is a consensus that the arrangements for managing individual best value reviews as specific projects, each with a project board and project team, should also remain.

4. These views indicated that improvements should focus on the relationship between the sub-group and the programme board, in effect by merging the two bodies. The members of each body agreed with this proposal in principle and proposed terms of reference for an amalgamated body are attached at Appendix 2.

5. In summary, the terms of reference emphasise the role of the programme board in commissioning a review to start and agreeing that members should consider a review's interim or final report formally. The board would monitor progress of each review and would approve major changes to plans, budgets and/or decisions.

6. The terms of reference at Appendix 2 were endorsed at a joint meeting of the current best value programme board and sub-group on 10 May 2001. The joint meeting confirmed that detailed management of the review would remain the responsibility of a project board chaired by an MPS officer (typically a member of MPS Management Board) and attended by a nominated lead member for that review.

Rationale for proposed terms of reference

Name
7. It is considered that the amalgamated body should retain the name 'best value programme board' to help describe and define its relationship with best value review project boards.

Remit and responsibilities
8. Given that the duty of best value is concerned with delivering continuous improvement (and not just delivering best value reviews) then the remit of the amalgamated body could include either:

• responsibility for ensuring continuous improvement in the MPS (ie oversight of all audit, inspection and review functions including best value reviews);
• responsibility for oversight of the best value review programme.

9. It is considered that Option 1 would require too many participants to be effective and would adversely constrain the amount of time available to consider individual best value reviews. Therefore, Option 2 is recommended and has been reflected in the responsibilities listed at Appendix 2. The type and extent of engagement with MPA members and/or officers on wider audit, inspection and review issues is subject to ongoing discussion.

Chair and membership
10. Given that responsibility for best value rests with the MPA it is considered Reshard Auladin as lead member should chair the amalgamated body.

11. As far as attendance by other MPA members is concerned there is a need to strike a balance between member engagement and effective use of members' time. It is proposed that those members currently sitting on the best value sub-group should attend the amalgamated body. In addition, MPA lead members for individual best value reviews should be invited to attend as necessary according to the agenda for each meeting. MPA officers would support members.

12. Proposed MPS membership is outlined at Appendix 2. Again, MPS project board chairs for individual best value reviews should be invited to attend as necessary according to the agenda for each meeting. MPS officers would support MPS management board members.

Frequency of meetings and support
13. It is considered that meetings should be held monthly and secretarial support should be provided by the MPA.

Conclusion

14. The revised arrangements address a common desire to clarify roles and responsibilities. Even so, given that MPS staff will be undertaking the majority of work associated with best value reviews, there will be occasions when it will be unclear whether or not the MPA should be informed and/or consulted on specific decisions. It is considered that regarding the MPA as the client for individual best value reviews would be a useful rule-of-thumb in deciding whether and how to engage.

15. In any event, the new arrangements should provide a clear focus for joint decision-making on key issues related to the programme of best value reviews.

C. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Derrick Norton, MPA Best Value Manager.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback