Best value review of training

Report: 10
Date: 25 July 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines changes to the Project Initiation Document for the Best Value Review of Training and provides an update on progress to date.

A. Recommendations

1. Members approve the changes to the revised PID; and
2. note the progress of the best value review of training

B. Supporting information

Background to the review

1. The best value review of training (BVR (T)) commenced on 28 January 2002 and is due to complete in September 2002. The review team is made up of five staff, including the review team leader - Superintendent Roger Smalley. Rachel Whittaker is the MPA representative on the Project Board and Cindy Butts the representative on the Independent Challenge Panel.

2. The review is unique as all other forces are reviewing training at the same time with the agreement and support of the APA and ACPO. A national team exists to support and encourage local BVR (T) reviews

3. All forces must complete interim reports by 30 September 2002. It is anticipated that the MPS draft report and improvement plan will be presented to this Committee on 3 October 2002. Reports must then be submitted to the national team, who will organise a series of facilitated meetings to discuss training issues raised across the service. Following these meetings, all forces are expected to amend their reports to take into account any national issues such as collaboration.

4. It is expected that all final reports and improvement plans should be agreed and signed off by authorities by the end of March 2003.

Project Initiation Document

5. A copy of the revised project initiation document (PID) for the best value review of training is available from the Secretariat of the MPA. The PID has been updated since the meeting of the best value programme board on 23 May when it was approved.

6. The significant change to the PID is the fact that, following further advice from HMIC (T), the review must include probationer training. This had previously been excluded as HMIC (T) recently carried out an in depth review of probationer training in the "Training Matters" report. HMIC (T) have clarified for the benefit of all forces that the inspection was not conducted following best value methodology and therefore the subject must be covered by the national best value review.

7. The implications of this change have been assessed and no adverse consequences for time, cost or quality are anticipated from extending the scope of the review.

Progress update

8. The review is progressing according to plan utilising the four C's (Compare, Consult, Challenge and Compete) methodology with (importantly for this review) a fifth C of Collaboration being considered.

9. Initial work has been undertaken in areas suggested in guidance produced by the national best value review team. Areas covered by the 'broad and shallow' study were as follows:

• Specialist Operations
• Territorial Operations (including Boroughs)
• Directorate of Training and Development
• Business Groups
• Corporate issues

In addition, in depth work will be carried out on the following areas of delivery:

• Public Order Training
• Surveillance Training
• Driver Training
• Management and Leadership Training
• Street Duties Training within the probationer programme

10. The following points have arisen as emerging findings from early work on the review:

• A revised management structure may be required for training in the MPS;
• Training priorities need to be clarified;
• The remits of the Management Boards need to be reconsidered;
• Training should be clearly linked to the delivery of the corporate plan objectives;
• Developing and changing the purchaser/provider relationship should be considered;
• A list of accredited training suppliers in accordance with specific criteria should be devised;
• Concerns have been raised on cost and contract controls, and auditing of the same;
• Clear specifications of what was required and expected of training packages need to be defined;
• The quality of the courses should be measured, with particular reference to external groups, and products delivered need evaluating;
• Core mandatory training needs to be defined and communicated; a decision on who agrees what is core mandatory training should be made;
• The range of training products available and how they are currently delivered needs to be captured;
• Management level responsibility for the various levels of training should be clarified;
• Service Level Agreements may need to be drawn up between the training directorate and other branches, boroughs or departments within the organisation.

These findings will be explored in more detail in the draft final report and improvement plan to be submitted to Human Resources Committee in October.

C. Financial implications

None at this stage.

D. Background papers

HMIC national thematic inspection reports 'Training Matters', January 2002.

E. Contact details

Report author: Superintendent Roger Smalley, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback