Management arrangements for best value

Report: 6
Date: 22 July 2002
By: Clerk

Summary

This reports proposes changes to the way in which the MPA’s responsibility for securing continuous improvement is delivered and supported.

A. Recommendations

1. That the Authority commissions two best value reviews per year;
2. That the chairs of MPS strategic committees be asked to nominate appropriate areas to review in 2003/04 for consideration by members (MPS to collate nominations and seek Management Board views before pasting nominations onto MPA);
3. That the role of MPA officers be extended to include direct links with MPS managers undertaking and supporting best value reviews;
4. That the MPA and MPS consider and agree project management arrangements for each best value review (and subsequent implementation) on a case-by-case basis;
5. That the MPS roles and resources for programme management and support duties be clarified and agreed with the MPA as a matter of urgency; and
6. That this report is forwarded (with PPRC decisions) to District Audit and HMIC to inform ongoing audit and inspection activity.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The remit of Planning, Performance and Review Committee includes the statutory responsibility to secure continuous improvement in MPS functions (best value). This general duty is supplemented by the specific duty to undertake a series of ‘best value reviews’ of MPS services / functions.

2. On 18 April 2002 FPBV Committee was advised of legal changes to the best value framework and approved a change to the MPA’s programme of best value reviews to that published in the policing and performance plan 2002/03.

3. The changes reported to members amounted to a relaxation in the best value regime. This relaxation is intended to give all best value authorities more discretion about what services to review by removing the need for all services to be reviewed within a five-year period. There has been no change in:

1. the prerogative for a police authority to review any aspect of police service (including, in the case of the MPA, the national and international functions of the MPS);
2. the Home Office’s expectation that police authorities will use best value reviews to improve effectiveness, efficiency and/or economy;
3. the expectation on the part of auditors and inspectors that securing continuous improvement is a critical aspect of corporate governance.

4. In response to the new statutory regime the MPA decided to subsume the role of the best value programme board into the role of this committee. Following discussion with MPS senior managers this report proposes additional changes to support PPR Committee and help deliver continuous improvement.

Number and type of reviews

5. The Authority’s programme of best value reviews is set out at Appendix 1 (reflecting the decisions at the former FPBV Committee on 18 April 2002). Two reviews were required to start in 2002/03: The 'managing people’ report elsewhere on this agenda) and ‘managing demand / operational policing’ (currently being scoped by MPS).

6. It is considered that the MPA should undertake two best value reviews per year. This assessment is based on:

• the difficulty, cost and duration of reviews given their strategic nature;
• the amount of other review work directly involving members;
• member availability for project boards / challenge panels;
• overall officer resources within the MPA;
• the overall level of audit, inspection and review activity in the MPS.'

7. There is a need to decide which two reviews should start in 2003/04. In line with the decision of FPBV Committee in April this should be initiated via a request to chairs of MPS strategic committees (from the lead member for best value) to nominate appropriate areas for review. Obviously, MPS management board may wish to comment on any overall preferences between nominations.

8. Strategic committee chairs should pass nominations to the Assistant Commissioner Policy Review and Standards who will consult with Management Board colleagues regarding their preferences. He will also consult with the Inspection Liaison and Analysis Unit (as the focal point for continuous improvement) to establish the likelihood of the nominations overlapping with other work, before returning the nominations to the MPA.

9. Members would then assess nominations (with supporting rationale plus any management board preferences) and select accordingly. Members would retain the right to select an area not nominated if the overall case for a different review was regarded as stronger if the overall case for a different review was regarded as stronger (but recognising the value of joint agreement as the ideal).

Support arrangements

10. The current arrangements for undertaking BVRs are set out at Appendix 2. In summary the MPA and MPS have a client/contractor relationship such that:

• each review is undertaken as a project and an MPA member sits on the MPS project board overseeing the work;
• the review is undertaken by MPS staff (typically including staff from the service under review) supported by staff in specialist departments (eg consultancy, finance and communication);
• a central team establishes and supports review teams as well as monitoring progress, budgets and implementation;
• following each best value review an implementation plan is developed by the MPS and delivery is monitored by members.

11. Within these arrangements the primary role of MPA officers has been to support members on review project boards. This role is extending to support members sitting on implementation project boards although the relevant committee will still need to monitor the action plan and benefits delivered following the review.

12. It is considered that the role of MPA officers should also be extended to include direct links with the team leader / project manager for the review and subsequent implementation project. This would help the MPS understand MPA requirements and assist the MPA in understanding progress, problems or issues. The direct links with teams would reduce once arrangements were in place for members to monitor delivery of the implementation plan.

13. It has also been recognised that project management arrangements for a review should be considered and agreed between the MPA and MPS during the preparation phase. The type of team leader / project manager should be agreed jointly on a case-by-case basis for the review and implementation phase, eg:

• a manager from the service under review (supported by a project management professional);
• an internal project management professional (supported by a manager from the service under review);
• an external project management professional (supported by a manager from the service under review and/or internal consultancy).

14. The decision in any particular instance would need to be informed by the overall availability of project managers within the MPS.

Oversight arrangements

15. PPR Committee has the responsibility for maintaining oversight of all best value reviews. This will need to be reflected in greater oversight on the part of MPA officers. This change, coupled with the proposed limit of two best value reviews per year, has prompted a reassessment of MPS support arrangements. A number of options are being considered including:

• do nothing;
• retaining programme support within a central team but amending working practices/resources to address the increased need for MPA oversight;
• transferring programme management and support resources to the MPS’ consultancy group.

16. Work is ongoing within the MPA and MPS to assess options and agree overall arrangements and a verbal update on progress will be provided at the meeting.

17. In due course the arrangements for support and oversight should be set out in a memorandum of understanding between the MPA as client and MPS as contractor. The formal arrangements for reporting progress to PPR Committee should be supplemented by informal meetings between the lead MPA member and MPS senior manager/officer responsible for best value reviews.

Framework of audit, inspection and review

18. The main audit, inspection and review processes of the MPS are set out at Appendix 3. There is widespread agreement that the framework needs to be streamlined and for there to be better co-ordination between different processes. Just as importantly, the cost of this activity and the benefits delivered needs to be clearly understood.

19. The MPS’ Quality, Performance and Risk Management Group is addressing these issues and a lead within the MPA’s structure is required. It is considered this role naturally falls to PPR Committee given its overarching responsibility for best value (ie the general duty to secure continuous improvement).

Next steps

20. PPR Committee will wish to raise awareness of its views and decisions with auditors and inspectors. Preliminary discussion with District Audit and HMIC suggests that the proposals in this report will be supported.

21. It is considered that this report should be forwarded to District Audit and HMIC for consideration during the current audit of the policing and performance plan 2002/03 and ongoing inspections of completed reviews. The report will also be forwarded to the APA to inform work to develop new national guidelines for police authorities concerning best value.

C. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications. The increased demands on the part of MPA officers will be offset by the effective reduction in the number of reviews.

D. Background papers

• Changes to the best value regime (Report 7, FPBV Committee 18 April 2002)
• MPA policing and performance plan 2002/03 (on Met website)

E. Contact details

Report author: Derrick Norton, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Current BVR programme

On 18 April 2002 FPBV Committee agreed that:

• ongoing best value reviews should continue and that the reviews of managing people and managing demand should start as planned (in April 2002 and June 2002);
• the number and order of other best value reviews for the period 2003/04 to 2004/05 be reassessed by June 2002;
• the chairs of MPS strategy committees are consulted prior to members making a final decision on the future programme of best value reviews.

As a consequence the programme of BVRs as stated in the policing and performance plan 2002/03 is no longer valid.

Notes

1. There are completed reviews of complaints and discipline, consultation, crime management, equalities and records management.
2. There are ongoing reviews of training and bringing offenders to justice.
3. The scoping work for managing demand is also looking at operational policing.
4. Under current proposals there is to be a nationally co-ordinated best value review of special branch in 2003/04 (status of proposals being discussed with APA).
5. HMIC has recommended consultation with stakeholders with a view to advising the Home Secretary to direct police authorities to undertake a best value review of ‘the processes to ensure PNC data quality and timeliness’ (HMIC National Thematic Inspection 2002).
6. The MPA/MPS best value programme board confirmed that the MPA should not take part in the GLA review of e-government (provisionally planned for 2002/03).

Appendix 2: Current management arrangements

Appendix 3: Framework of audit, inspection and review

The key processes used by the MPA/MPS to help secure continuous improvement are listed below.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback