Contents
Report 10 of the 20 October 2005 meeting of the Human Resources Committee and provides an overview of the HMIC Best Value Review (Training) inspection. It summarises the findings of the report and details the MPS response.
Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).
See the MOPC website for further information.
HMIC best value inspection of training
Report: 10
Date: 20 October 2005
By: Commissioner
Summary
This report provides an overview of the HMIC Best Value Review (Training) inspection. It summarises the findings of the report and details the MPS response.
A. Recommendation
That members note the report.
B. Supporting information
1. The MPS, in common with all other police services in England and Wales, carried out a Best Value Review of Training (BVR(T) in 2002-03. It was intended that all BVR(T)s would be inspected by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies (HMIC) when complete. The inspection of the MPS was carried out in February 2005 and the report published in June.
2. The report found that we have strong strategic and organisational structures in place at a corporate level. These resulted in a training strategy very well aligned to Home Office requirements and a training plan meriting noteworthy practice. However, the report also noted weaknesses at a tactical level with local planning and understanding being of a more variable quality. We were encouraged by the support for our corporate approach and will be working to achieve greater engagement with local training units over the coming year.
3. The report also made ten recommendations and these, along with our responses, are reproduced at Appendix 1. We had already recognised, and were acting on or had resolved, many of the issues raised in the recommendations prior to publication of the HMIC report. Nevertheless, all recommendations have been incorporated into our Improvement Plan and progress is being monitored through the Training Management Board. We do not anticipate any barriers to implementing the recommendations.
4. Each inspection report concludes with two judgements.
- Judgement one
How good is the service? (Excellent, good, fair or poor)
Are the Authority’s aims clear and challenging?
Does the service meet these aims?
How does the service compare? - Judgement two
What are the prospects for improvement? (Excellent, promising, uncertain or poor)
Does the best value review drive improvement?
How good is the improvement plan?
Will the improvements be delivered?
5. The judgements are reproduced at Appendix 2. HMIC published an interim report covering the first 24 inspections in October 2004. Five of the forces inspected achieved a better placement than the MPS with respect to judgement one and only two were rated higher in judgement two.
C. Race and equality impact
There are no new equality and diversity implications resulting from this report.
D. Financial implications
There are no additional resource or financial implications resulting from this report.
E. Background papers
- MPS Best Value Review of Training - Final Report
- HMIC Report – Best Value Review of Police Training – Metropolitan Police Service
F. Contact details
Report author: Mike Harwood-Grayson
For more information contact:
MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18
Appendix 1
MPS response to recommendations
| Recommendation | Comment | Timescales |
|---|---|---|
| 1. HM Inspector recommends that the Force reviews the resources required in order to provide a timely completed Costed Training Plan. That review will cover the specific relationship required between the Directorate of Training and Development and the Human Resource Directorate in respect of financial support and expertise | The recommendation refers to the 2004/05 Plan. The 2005/06 Plan was the first produced since the Directorate of Training and Development took overall control of the process. The 2005/06 Plan was produced on time and gained the highest possible score in the Home Office validation exercise. We are now working closely with the Activity Board Costing (ABC) senior accountant to ensure that future processes fully meet the requirements of external audit by the Audit Commission. | Complete |
| 2. HM Inspector recommends that the Quarterly Management Report is further developed to incorporate contemporaneous cost information for training delivered compared to that planned | This work is in hand but is dependent on protocols for in-year costing being developed. This is a complex area and we are trying to minimise the burden on local training and finance units providing detailed guidance and through site visits. | Pilot implementation on twice yearly basis for FY2005/06. Subject to successful development of protocols, this will extend to a quarterly basis during FY2006/07. |
| 3. HM Inspector recommends that a review is conducted to identify and rectify difficulties encountered by some Training Boards preventing them from meeting on a regular basis, and providing the required management information to the Training Management Board | Training Management Board (TMB) Chair to maintain the pressure. All Training Boards required to provide records of their quarterly meetings at each TMB and are held to account for this by chair. | Ongoing - quarterly in line with TMB meeting schedule. |
| 4. HM Inspector recommends that a corporate client contractor relationship is designed, marketed, and applied across all Territorial, Operational and Crime functions of the Force, able to feed into the current Training Board function | The original “Models for Learning“ attempted to do this was impenetrably bureaucratic. If the draft revision (final version due in September) does not meet this need, then we will develop local guidance. | To be in place for commencement of FY2006/07. |
| 5. HM Inspector recommends that the role and remit of the Training Standards Unit is reviewed in order to strengthen and accelerate its ambition to monitor and raise performance and standards across all training and development functions, particularly in relation to quality assurance and evaluation | We now have an extensive programme in place, compatible with our resources. Additionally, the role of the recently established Learning Support Unit encompasses training staff in these functions, communicating the MPS requirements and supporting practitioners. In this way, we expect to build capability at local and business group level. | Complete |
| 6. HM Inspector recommends that the force reinforce the role of the evaluation team to all training providers. The function of the evaluation team should include details of a mechanism for actioning evaluation project recommendations | This is in place for clients but needs to be formally brought into the remit of each Training Board’s agenda. | Jan 2006 |
| 7. HM Inspector recommends that the force and Police Authority satisfy itself that all recommendations contained within Diversity Matters have been, or continue to be monitored and responded to | TMB has not had scrutiny of these since they have been within the remit of Diversity Board. However, the training issues will be incorporated in the Improvement Plan. New Director of Diversity is to be TMB member on taking up appointment and will be answerable for progress. Although the recommendation refers to Diversity Matters, there are numerous other reports that need to monitored and responded to in the same way. Hence we consider this action to be “ongoing”. | Ongoing |
| 8. HM Inspector recommends that the Force and Police Authority develop a clear audit trail of local and regional activity in respect to Foundations for Change | The Foundations for Change are in the Improvement Plan and therefore will be monitored by TMB. The nature of some of the Foundations for Change is such that they can probably never be considered
truly complete. |
Ongoing |
| 9. HM Inspector recommends that the Force review the PDR process. This review will incorporate the development of PDR to better link with training planning and evaluation | Linking development requirements raised in PDRs to the training planning process is difficult because development requirements are expressed after the plan has been agreed. Additionally, there is currently no formal process for aggregating the development needs to feed future plans. This difficulty is not unique to the MPS, the situation would be improved by identifying a manageable system and this could be by reference to practice in other forces. Such options are currently being explored in the DTD QA unit. | Ongoing |
| 10. HM Inspector recommends that the Force incorporates training and development functions into its locally based business planning processes | The two elements required are: raising the profile of training planning at local level and, through Activity Based Costing, consequent local accountability. The former is being promoted by the Learning Support Unit. We have established a virtual community for trainers on the intranet. This has been very well received and provides high levels of mutual support. It is our intention to ensure that, from Jan 2006, all MPS trainers receive a professional training qualification and this will also raise their profile. The implementation of Activity Based Costing during FY2006/07 will mean that trainers have a pivotal role in business planning since training costing is a key module in the suite of activities to be costed. | Ongoing |
Appendix 2
HMIC judgements
Judgement 1:
Training and development processes were found to be increasingly more valued by members of staff across the Force. Structures reinforced, and built from new after the Best Value review have started to become effective across more business areas, particularly at the centre where the service was found to be, at least, good. Good development of a strategy and costing model for training has taken place, however the effective use of these key areas needs to evolve to fully utilise their potential, particularly at borough and departmental level, where currently little effective use is made of information available. At this level, staff were found to be unable to prioritise or respond to local need, and felt only able to react to centrally mandated training. The key strategic cornerstones for effective prioritisation and planning are in place through Training Boards but these need to develop in a consistent manner, to fully satisfy organisational goals.
The Force must look closely at its PDR mechanisms and the use of national guidance across all training functions, to ensure staff receive timely and quality training. Significant development has taken place since the Best Value review of training and much still needs to be done to ensure that this good work becomes established and interwoven throughout all training providers and processes. Many of the changes that have occurred as a result of the Best Value review have yet to be embedded across the whole training function, particularly in relation to cost, planning and standards. HM Inspector concludes therefore that the quality of the service is ‘fair’.
Judgement 2:
A good Best Value review led to a number of key changes to the training and development functions of the Force. The Police Authority have shown themselves to be thorough in their monitoring of these developments, and actively engaged in the process. A draft Force-wide improvement plan has been developed by the MPS. This document will provide a pathway for future improvements in training and development, and is underpinned by a robust monitoring mechanism. HM Inspector concludes therefore that the prospects for improvement are ‘promising’.
Send an e-mail linking to this page
Feedback