Training & development directorate: notional training budgets and best value update

Report: 11
Date: 8 January 2004
By: Commissioner

Summary

The MPS Training Management Board (TMB) considered a proposal to implement shadow budgets as a precursor to devolved training budgets. It did not support the proposal. HRC requested a copy of that paper.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

1. The TMB paper is attached as appendix 1.

2. The meeting chaired by the Deputy Commissioner took the view that devolved budgets could not be implemented because a per capita allocation would be inflexible. It would not cater for actual training need. The training requirement for any command unit has many variables, depending on its service and age profile and the uneven transfers to other departments resulting in a skills gap. Moreover, if training budgets were fully devolved, an unintended consequence would be that commands would request a transfer fee to cover the skills loss of the outgoing member of staff. Industry evidence has shown that discrete business units do not spend their devolved training budgets wholly on training, some even create local training to avoid having to pay for it.

3. TMB did however consider a paper on seeking a return on training investment by use of ‘contracts’. Management Board subsequently endorsed the proposal to pilot ‘lock-ins’ for high demand courses such as driving and investigators’ courses. That paper is attached at appendix 2.

4. The above two developments arise from the first Best Value recommendation of ‘Running Training as a Business’. Future work in this arena is dependent on the evaluation of the above training contracts’ proposal. The only other outstanding recommendation is that of the TP training estate (rec 5), this will feature as an agenda item at February’s TMB. Sufficient hard copies of the full Best Value Review into Training have been deposited with the authority for reference.

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no equality or diversity implications.

D. Financial implications

None.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander Shabir Hussain, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Training Management Board –23 October 2003.

Training & Development Directorate: Notional Training Budgets.

Summary

The Best Value Review of Training challenged the current training delivery structure and recommended that the MPS test whether a move towards a business approach for training would enhance the overall provision of training within the MPS. This report proposes a model that will create notional training budgets to test the concept of running training like a business.

A. Recommendation

TMB to note the content of this report.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPS training function presents opportunities for economies of scale, better utilisation of trainers and enforcing the consequences of people not attending courses as agreed/directed (BVRT 2003). The link between accountability, responsibility and the cost of training is not clearly defined. There is a need to make a distinction between those demanding the training (the client side) and those delivering training (the contractor side) so that it can be demonstrated that the client side is driving training and not the reverse.

2. The first stage of running training like a business is to disaggregate training budgets. This will reinforce the concept of client/contractor allow OCU Commanders to see the cost of training as it is provided to them.

3. Appendix A illustrates a specimen of training common to all BOCUs (Driving school courses) and shows how they could be allocated across TP to create a notional budget. The allocation is based on actual allocation to TP for 2003/4 and the cost per course is extracted from the national costing model for 2003/4. All centrally provided training, except promotion training, could be included in this type of notional budget.

4. The costs are a per capita allocation based on PC strength only and therefore do not take into account the fluctuations in local need. The cost per course is made on the assumption of full attendance on courses, otherwise costs will rise.

5. Should the MPS wish to pursue this approach, all other centrally allocated DTD courses (in the first instance) would have their costs disaggregated to both BOCUs and OCUs. It is envisaged a shadow budget process starts in 2004-05 and is reviewed mid year. The by products of such a move in addition to any unintended consequences need to be assessed before any consideration is given to devolving real budgets.

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no equality or diversity implications.

D. Financial implications

None

E. Background papers

None.

List of Appendices: Annex A illustration of Notional Training Budget

Report author: Ch Insp W Petford
Sponsor Training Board: Cdr Hussain

Appendix 2

Management Board – December 2003

Training contracts

Report by Commander Hussain

Summary

Position paper outlining the use of Training Contracts to ensure the MPS secures Best Value for its investment in training.

A. Recommendation

That Management Board endorse the principles proposed in this paper, authorise the proposed first stage of roll-out and to recognise that business groups have discretion to vary the lock-in periods.

B. Supporting information

1. The Training Management Board originally commissioned this paper, considered it on 23rd October and remitted it to Management Board. The total cost of MPS training (direct and consequential) is estimated to be around £300m. It is essential that the MPS secures the best return from this investment in people. One possible solution is to use an enforceable agreement between the sponsoring unit and the recipient of the training. This ‘Training Contract’ would bind the recipient to applying their new skills within the unit for a fixed period.

Present position

2. Currently BCU commanders have discretion to use ‘statements of expectation’, an unenforceable promise by the officer to remain in post. Arrangements can be made to bind police officers to minimum periods of postings (the relevant extracts from notices are attached as appendix A). The only agreed exception being promotions.

3. The position in relation to Police staff is different. Provisions can be -by prior agreement- incorporated into individuals' contracts (see extracts contained in appendix A). Provided these consequences are clearly explained to the individual at the time they enter into the agreement, such an arrangement is lawful.

Proposal.

4. Training contracts will be an enforceable extension of existing statements of expectation. Their use provides not only proper returns on a training investment but also assists training supply meeting demand. It is also recommended that selection for non-mandatory training is explicitly linked to a PDR. A formula could address the relationship between cost of a course and the term of the contract (see appendix B). Members may wish to distinguish between a loss of a skill to a business unit and a loss of a skill to the MPS; e.g. a driver leaving TP to SO as a response driver continues to use that skill, whereas a driver moving into a policy post does not.

Consultation

Superintendents Association

5. The Superintendents’ Association found unanimous approval for 1-3 year training contracts, proportional to the cost of the training and applicable to all staff except high potential officers and promotion. It believes contracts should apply to: high demand courses, courses providing service critical skills and externally provided training. The association places great value on identifying staff suitable for training by use of effective PDR processes. In terms of penalties for those reneging on contracts the association suggested: periodic disqualification from further non-mandatory training, refusal by management to allow change of role or noting officers’ PDR to reflect failure to comply with contract. The association expressed caution regarding inflexible contracts, envisaging a situation where a trained officer proves unsuitable for a post. In such circumstances, the MPS will wish to retain the ability to move the officer.

The Federation

6. The federation supports the concept of a ‘Training Contract’ but seeks to clarify the nature of the sanction used to enforce it. The federation highlights the distinction between those courses officers volunteer to undertake and those they are required to attend. They suggest officers may be happy to sign a contract for the former but not the latter. They are concerned over the standing of the contract since the service may enforce or break the contract, ’In the good of the service’ whereas the officer would not have the option to conclude the arrangement. The federation believes that training contracts might be better devolved to BCU commanders where there is first hand knowledge of the staff.

The Unions

7. The Unions would not support such a proposal where the training was the minimum for the job description. However, training in excess of the minimum or where the individual was considering changing jobs would be less of an issue for them.

Compulsion v Choice

8. The Federation make a valid point where staff are compelled to go on unpopular courses for the organisation’s benefit, whereas by contrast there are no shortage of volunteers for driving courses. The issue for MB is to what extent do we recognise this issue. One perverse outcome could be that no-one volunteers for a course so that they will be exempt from any contract. Given that this is a major change in thinking, it is proposed that it is rolled out incrementally. The obvious starting point would be those popular courses where demand exceeds supply, namely driving and initial investigators’ courses. Unintended consequences are then evaluated and the paper re-submitted in a year or earlier if these consequences are readily identifiable. Business groups were invited to add other courses, no proposals were received. It is recommended that driving courses and initial investigators courses are piloted under this regime and that business groups choose an accrual rate from appendix B to determine the lock in period.

C. Equality and diversity implications

Legal services advise, to ensure equality, training contracts must be applied uniformly to all similar cases. For example, if officer A is required to remain in post for 1 year but officer B, whose circumstances are similar, is not, officer B may be able to show a detriment and difference of treatment where they are of different race or gender. It is for the MPS to demonstrate that different contracts are for other reasons

D. Financial implications

Nil

List of appendices

• Annex A Extracts from special notices and civil staff personnel manual.
• Annex B Illustration of a determination of training contracts by formula.

Report author: Commander Shabir Hussain.
Background Papers: Nil.

Annex A

Special Notice 9/01: Police Postings Policy contains a number of references to setting minimum periods of posting. I refer you in particular to paragraphs 2.2 and 5.3.2

2.2 This policy does not require that limits be set on the duration of an officer’s posting to a role. However, at the discretion of the operational command unit (OCU) commander/head of department, roles in a borough or in a headquarters department may justify an expected minimum or maximum period of posting. These would be specified in a Statement of Expectations (see Section 5.3)

5.3.2 A minimum period of posting might apply, for example, if there is a need to recoup an investment in training undertaken by the individual officer or where continuity is essential in the role or OCU/department.

Paragraph 2 of chapter 2.5 of the civil staff personnel manual states:

How will I know if I am eligible to be considered for a promotion/selection exercise?

The advertisement will state the competencies, skills, abilities, experience and qualifications that are needed for the grade/post. If you meet the criteria then you will be eligible to be considered.

Annex B

This table illustrates the use of an accrual rate to determine the duration of training contracts for various courses. The table has been constructed using the superintendents association’s response wherein members envisage a mean average of 24 months for a training contract. Using this as a baseline for the response car course the monthly accrual rate shows that 24 months at £80 per month would return the £1888 cost of the course.

By choosing an accrual rate MB members can effectively determine the length of the training contract.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback