Best value review of retention

Report: 05
Date: 6 February 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

Members are asked to endorse the view of the project board overseeing the best value review of retention that the review be concluded. This change in approach has been prompted by a significant overlap between the review and other work aimed at implementing a retention strategy. The delivery of improvements with respect to retention, particularly of under-represented groups, would remain a key issue for the MPS and progress reported to this Committee as previously agreed.

A. Recommendation

1. Members endorse the proposal from the project board overseeing the best value review of retention to conclude the review; subject to
2. the MPS retention strategy being re-formulated into an ‘improvement plan’ for approval and monitoring by this Committee (see MPS report at agenda item 6).

B. Supporting information

Background

1. On 25 July 2002, Human Resources Committee decided that the best value review (BVR) of managing people should focus on improving retention. At the same meeting, members endorsed an MPS retention strategy outlining initiatives to be introduced in the short, medium and long term. It was also agreed that progress in delivering these initiatives would be reported back to the Committee every six months.

2. A project initiation document setting out the scope and plan for the BVR was subsequently prepared and approved. A project board chaired by the MPS Director of Resources was established to oversee the work (attended by Jennette Arnold as lead member for the review).

Progress

3. The decision to initiate a review of retention and to implement a retention strategy reflected, in part, the importance members attached to this issue. Members agreed that the overlap between the two pieces of work needed to be actively managed and it has become apparent that the overlap is much greater than anticipated.

4. Consequently, it became difficult to reconcile implementation of a retention strategy whilst at the same time undertaking a fundamental review of retention. Two options were presented to lead members, [1] either:

• postpone further implementation of the strategy pending the review; or
• conclude the review and concentrate on implementing the strategy.

5. Lead members thought that, on balance, the latter approach best suited the needs of the MPA and MPS and agreed that the proposal should be put to the project board before being brought to this Committee for approval.

6. This view of lead members was subject to the caveat that progress must be maintained in improving retention for police and civil staff across the whole of the MPS with a particular emphasis on under-represented groups. Members thought that this ought to be achieved by re-formulating the MPS retention strategy into an ‘improvement plan’ as would have been delivered at the end of a best value review. Progress towards this plan could then be monitored by the MPS and Human Resources Committee (see MPS report at agenda item 6). In this way there is a clear audit trail from the 29 initiatives in the MPS retention strategy endorsed by members to specific costs, benefits, timescales and responsibilities for implementation.

7. The approach at paragraphs 3–6 above was considered and supported by the project board on 13 December 2002. All members of the board thought that the change in approach, whilst unfortunate, represented the best way forward. The board was also clear that the change in approach should not be regarded as criticism of the review team. It was agreed that the remit of the project board should change to oversee implementation of the MPS retention strategy.

C. Equality and diversity implications

As noted at paragraph six, implementation of the MPS retention strategy covers police and civil staff across the whole of the MPS with a particular emphasis on under-represented groups.

D. Financial implications

The finances and resources earmarked for the best value review will be re-distributed. As reported to HR Committee in July 2002, much of the proposed retention strategy carries no financial implications. Many of the components are of no cost or of such minimal cost that they can be contained. Where there are financial implications, these will be the subject of separate reports to this Committee as the appropriate initiative is developed and proposed.

D. Background papers

• HR Committee Reports 25 July 2002 (item 7 and item 17)

E. Contact details

Report author: Derrick Norton, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback