Implementation of Glidewell in the MPS

Report: 05
Date: 13 March 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report sets out the MPS approach to the implementation of Glidewell within the MPS taking into account the experience at Holborn and suggests the way forward within the unique environment of policing London.

A. Recommendations

1. The Members note the contents of the report
2. The Members ratify the combination of CPS lawyers and Case Progression Units at the point of charge as the principal way forward
3. For members to agree that any further work on the 15-site Glidewell model should cease.

B. Supporting information

1. In 1996 Sir Iain Glidewell was commissioned to deliver a report into the progress and performance of the Crown Prosecution Service ten years after its inception. Assisting in this review was Sir Geoffrey Deere a former Chief Constable. The report was delivered to Parliament in 1998.

2. The content of the report as commissioned deals predominantly with the organisation, structure, service delivery and performance of the CPS nationally. A number of paragraphs in Chapter 10 in particular paragraph 59 refer in general terms to the benefits of co-location and working of the CPS and the Police Service.

3. The report does not define the meaning of co-location or the systems and processes in support. It does, however, refer in paragraph 59 to the position in London in terms of its unique environment and suggests that somewhere in the region of 30 co-located CJUs would appear to be appropriate.

4. It would be accurate to say that developments over the past six months have made the original decision to adopt a fifteen Glidewell unit model questionable. The issue of cost is clearly relevant, but more importantly the appropriateness of selecting a model that fails to take full account of the borough structure was probably flawed. The push for devolvement of financial responsibility to boroughs is not helped by the creation of units that span borough commands.

5. A significant criterion for selecting the fifteen unit model of service delivery was predicated on the fact that the CPS found itself restricted to a limited number of lawyers and was unable to support thirty-two individual boroughs. Acceptance of this position by the MPS was misjudged particularly in the light of the fact that other agencies such as the Probation Service were modernising and changing to support the borough structure. Additionally, it contradicts both the MPS borough plan and local accountability.

6. Agencies operating within the borough structure are able to interact with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and to have an impact on crime at every level. The CPS, operating a different structure, would be unable to enjoy the same advantage as other Criminal Justice (CJ) agencies.

7. Recent re-evaluation of the role of the Crown Prosecution Service by its own senior management and the fact that new legislation is almost certain to direct that charges can only be drafted by the CPS have altered the landscape considerably. The CPS has agreed that lawyers at the point of charge is a priority and they have begun a recruitment drive to secure sufficient lawyers numbers to ensure that they are represented at charging sites. This removes the original and most pressing criteria for selecting the 15 unit model.

8. The introduction of lawyers to charging sites will be further assisted by the initiative to create a centralised traffic offences unit within London (already subject to an MPA paper). The CPS believe that it will produce economies of scale in relation to traffic case work and release lawyers to the point of charge for crime cases.

9. The MPS and CPS have agreed that the three priorities should drive the co-location agenda.

CPS lawyers at the point of charge

10. This will be achieved in the short-term (12 to 18 months) and will involve lawyers operating within each borough. The ambition is to eventually see lawyers at all 56 charging sites, but in reality some of those may eventually be served by an information technology link.

MPS / CPS joint working on victim / witness focus desks to improve service

11. This is being addressed through the ‘Narrowing the Justice Gap Plan’, and the Crown Prosecution Service is leading the work on victim and witness care. This initiative will result in the most appropriate level of response being provided against the individual needs of the victim and witness in each case.

MPS / CPS integrated working

12. This is being addressed in a number of ways. Secure email links, via the PNN network are nearing completion and to date 22 of the 32 boroughs enjoy the facility of being able to send emails with attachments to the CPS and visa versa.

13. The full co-location of all functions as experienced at Holborn is probably unachievable in the short to medium term as the costs are prohibitive. It must be remembered, however, that secure email communication was not available at the time the Holborn unit was created and it has resolved many of the challenges the Holborn unit was designed to overcome.

14. The CPS units at Colindale and Edmonton are closer to the original concept and do include an element of administrative co-location, but these are the last two units to be created in this way. Colindale and Edmonton are so far towards completion that it would be counter-productive to reverse the decisions made in respect to those two joint units.

15. Integrated working will be achieved through face to face communication with the CPS lawyers placed at the point of charge. They will be in a position to give advice:

• Pre – arrest investigation
• At the point of charge in pre – arrest circumstances
• At the point of discretionary arrest
• Post charge
• During the post charge investigation

16. It is anticipated that this new way of working will make a significant difference to the charge discontinuance rate and to the number of cracked or ineffective trials.

17. The rollout programme for lawyers at the point of charge is currently being formulated and will take into account, the accommodation available at each borough, the lawyers available and funds available form the CPS to upgrade facilities, as they are made available for occupation. Lawyers are currently already working at Southwark Borough. The issues of accommodation equivalence in relation to the MPS / CPS estate are being addressed separately by PSD who are in close negotiations with the CPS. It is the vision of both the MPS and the CPS that pre-charge advice be available at all 56 charging sites although it is accepted that a number of these will be provided through the use of conferencing IT facilities. The CPS are keen to ensure that all 32 boroughs receive face to face pre-charge advice. It is however accepted that in the short to medium term high volume boroughs such as Lambeth may attract lawyers to more than one site and low volume boroughs such as Sutton may only receive advice through the use of technology. It is impossible at this stage to provide an accurate schedule as this process is still in the development stage, but the MPS is committed to ensuring that the high volume boroughs receive advice at the earliest opportunity.

18. The rollout of the new case progression units identified by the KPMG project also begins immediately. The first borough to be affected is again Southwark. An assessment of how the combined initiatives of lawyers at the point of charge and new case progression units impacts upon criminal justice performance will provide a rationale for including CPS lawyers at more sites across London.

19. The 15 unit model originally proposed was expensive and progression is dependant upon the commitment of large amounts of capital and revenue monies for the foreseeable future. This proposal negates the need for such a large budget build and makes the vision of co-location more realistic and less aspirational.

20. Agreement allowing lawyers to use MPS building space to provide a much needed, and soon to be legislative role, is a pragmatic solution to a challenging issue that, if delayed, could have the effect of stalling the advances being made in the criminal justice system.

21. Accepting that this proposal is a departure from the original concept, below is a table outlining the MPS / MPA decision-making process in relation to the formulation of the 15 Glidewell units.

22. The Holborn Glidewell unit was set up as a combination of the police CJUs from Camden and Islington Boroughs with the respective CPS Magistrates courts sections, there are currently 108 staff in the police CJU with 12 vacancies. The police CJU and CPS units are located on separate floors. The unit does not include the trials units or youth sections.

23. The integration of MPS and CPS working practices was not envisaged until the latter stages of the project.

MPS/MPA decision making

Objectives for the project board were documented as:

24.

• Minimise duplication
• Improve efficiency and co-ordination of working practices
• Improve police / CPS relationships
• Reduce delays
• Improve service to victims and witnesses

Means by which the project board will measure success were documented as:

25.

• Shorter lines of communication between Police and CPS
• Minimised transport of files between police and CPS
• Cost savings by reduction of task duplication including photocopying, archiving and the collection of performance and management information
• Implementation of a single file system to improve cost efficiency and effectiveness
• Improved file quality and timeliness for Police and CPS
• Improved witness warning, witness care and victim support
• More effective deployment of staff
• Individuals within each organisation locally empowered to make day-to-day decisions
• Clearly defined single focus location for court and other agency contact

Project achievements are listed as:

26.

• MPS / CPS co-located
• Floor plans laid out to support the processes
• Core CJU business processes identified
• Core processes ensure value added
• From ‘go live ‘ operation as a single unit as opposed to two borough CJUs
• Non-core functions relocated to most relevant BOCU portfolio
• Managed process of change through joint communication strategy
• Developed an interim CJU despatch service
• Rolling rack archiving system acquired and installed
• Migration plan created
• Interim arrangements for finance to be established
• MPS / CPS telephony requirements installed
•  ‘Hot desking’ eliminated
• New desks, storage cabinets and office facilities
• Performance framework being revised by MPS consultancy group
• Interim BOCU agreement on secondment of staff
• Human resource plan produced
• CPS security clearance addressed
• Training and development strategy developed

Medium and long term aims:

27.

• Greater integration
• Develop single file process for implementation
• CJU processes to be bedded down, refined and amended on introduction of a single case file
• Corporate solution to CJU despatch requirement needed
• Joint MPS / CPS records management system to be scoped
• Corporate approach to funding Glidewell CJUs required
• E-mail link by medium term
• Corporate solution to integrated IT required
• Resolve difference in CPS / MPS workspace and standards remains
• Corporate Glidewell structure and management needed
• Corporate security / data protection policy needed for full integration
• Corporate PNA to be conducted in medium term

Summary of the Evaluation (full report at Appendix A have been circulated to members and is available on request)

28. The MPS Glidewell Programme Manager commissioned an evaluation of the Phase 1 Glidewell implementation at Holborn, undertaken jointly by the MPS Internal Consultancy Group and CPS Management and Audit Services.

It describes the Holborn CJU at the time of this evaluation as follows:

29.

• Much was achieved with limited resources in collocating MPS and CPS staff in April and May 2002
• However even Phase 1 of the original plan was not fully achieved in May 2002: there remained a number of issues, which the project team and Holborn management were still working upon, to resolve at the time of this evaluation. These included MPS IT usability, ownership of the MPS CJU, establishing standard working practices, dealing with the backlog of work built up during the implementation, performance reporting, developing SLAs, and the relationship with the CPS Trial Unit.
• Overall performance of the joint CJU was impacted by initial difficulties with IT and the unexpected problems with the TU. There is some evidence from CPS PIs that performance is now improving
• In merging its CJUs the MPS has achieved annual staff cost savings of some £200,000.
• Lack of baseline data makes it impossible to quantify the process benefits of collocation: there is some qualitative evidence that it is yielding benefits in improved CJU working and in improved Police officer access to the CPS
• There is scope for further development of joint working, moving towards the integration envisaged in Phase 3 of the original plan.

The principal recommendations for the Holborn Glidewell are shown in the evaluation as:

30.

• There should be recognition of the 'snagging' difficulties that persisted from the initial Holborn implementation. If these problems are not resolvable directly through local consultation and direct management action, resolution should be sought through the Glidewell Programme Board. It may be necessary to reconstitute the Holborn Project Board to oversee any resolution that involves significant amounts of work.
• There should be recognition by all parties that the current situation Holborn Glidewell is a collocation of MPS and CPS staff with no process integration. The only exception to this is in the area of witness warning where it could be argued that some integration is happening. Thus there is still scope for further change (and increased benefit) at Holborn in line with the Glidewell principles.
• Any future developments (in particular process improvements to move towards Phase 3) should be treated fully as a project (or projects), controlled through standard Project Management processes including PIDs, allocation of PM responsibilities, and control through a Project Board reporting to the Glidewell Programme Board.
• MPS and CPS should be represented at all levels (project team, project management, project board) in any future developments.
• Management at Holborn should develop the interaction between MPS and CPS staff beyond the current level of liaison over individual cases. Mechanisms should be put in place to enable staff, particularly those at Sgt/EO/CPS equivalents level to meet to review performance and undertake problem solving.
• There should be development of performance measures that align to MPS and CPS local and national needs and inform the unit’s Heads on performance and areas for improvement in the unit and related agencies – customers and partners – providing a joined up approach and quantifying joint working.

The principal recommendations for future joint working implementations are: 

31.

• Future implementations should treated as projects and be subject to appropriate project management disciplines in the spirit of PRINCE
• The scope of future implementations should specify what is to be achieved in terms of collocation and integration, and be agreed by the senior representatives of the MPS and the CPS on the Project Board: they should also formally agree any subsequent changes in scope
• CPS and MPS should be fully represented at all levels (project team, project management, project board) in each project
• MPS and CPS should ensure that appropriate support is available to the project team from specialist departments to cover areas such as HR policy (corporate and local), finance, IT planning, IT technical support, IT administrative support, space planning, security, and corporate communication. These contributions should be controlled either through specialist department nominees reporting to the project manager(s) or by their attendance at project board meetings
• Risk analysis for future implementations should include all aspects of the Holborn implementation that caused problems during the implementation, in particular changes in scope, project team resourcing, IT continuity planning, disparate working practices, relationship with the Trail Unit.
• Evaluation should be included as a project activity and resources made available to establish whatever baseline data is required to assess and manage benefits

Options

32. Principally there are three options available to deliver criminal justice file management:

• Do nothing more
• Continue with the 15 Glidewell model
• Implement Case Progression Units with CPS lawyers at the point of charge

Option 1 - Do nothing more

33. The current situation regarding CJUs has evolved since the formation of the CPS in 1986. The working practices, business systems and processes have developed over time with little attention to corporacy. Some CJUs work a linear cradle to grave process whilst others practice a modular processes; in effect there are 32 different MPS methods of undertaking this area of business.

34. The majority of the work involves the administration of a duplicate case file in tandem with the CPS unit. Considerable bureaucracy and duplication of effort is involved based on a fax and memo culture between the two administration units. Although the accountability and timeliness in relation to corrective action for case file building will be considerably improved with full implementation of the secure email systems.

35. The capability of this style of unit can be progressed and improved with the combination of training, new technology and performance management regime. However it will not position the resources engaged in CJUs across the MPS in direct support of case preparation and management.

36. Within criminal justice, victim and witness care is constantly highlighted as critical to success. There are no corporate processes or practices for the provision of victim and witness support and care in the current CJUs.

37. The turn over of staff within the current CJU environment has been anecdotally high, the reasons for this include lack of training due to the absence of corporate processes and a low level of prestige attached to the roles.

38. Perhaps the strongest argument for change is that the investment in people in the CJU is not currently being maximised, to support the operational end of business delivery.

Option 2 - 15 Glidewell model

39. Under the plan for 15 Glidewells a large proportion of the accommodation for co-working was scheduled to be located within MPS buildings. Much of the limited progress under this plan has been due to difficulties with finding suitable accommodation both in terms of size and suitability within the MPS estate.

40. The rollout programme for this approach was scheduled to complete in 2006, however there are significant unresolved difficulties regarding the estate availability to support the positioning of resources in this way. Additionally, this coincides with the rapid growth of front line resources for policing London, this growth in police numbers brings its own challenge in relation to suitable accommodation.

41. This approach co-locates the MPS CJU with the CPS magistrates administration sections including lawyers. It does not however include the youth sections and the trials units dealing with Crown Court cases; these are significant and critical parts of the business.

42. At the time of the planning of this approach the electronic case file systems NSPIS for the MPS and Compass for the CPS, although planned was not in a deliverable position.

43. Given the costs involved in this programme there are few if any benefits which cannot be realised by the 32-borough model, with lawyers placed at the point of charge.

Option 3 - Case Progression Units with CPS lawyers at the point of charge

44. Joint working with the CPS is crucial to improved performance and the Government has indicated that significant improvement is required. The option of integrated working currently being pursued involves placing lawyers at the point of charge within the thirty-two boroughs. This initiative, which is fully supported by the CPS, results in closer working and pre-charge advice for operational officers. The advantage of such an initiative is that full co-location involving the amalgamation of the administrative functions of both organisations is not a pre-requisite to success. Accommodation required for such co-location would be restricted to a small number of offices for lawyers and their individual support. In many cases it has already been identified on the boroughs. The estate requirements of the initially proposed Glidewell units were significant greater and it has become clear that it is not achievable.

45. This model seeks to put experienced CPS lawyers at the point of charge in each of the 32 Boroughs. Depending on the size of the borough and the workload it is envisaged that there would be 2 or 3 lawyers, supported by 1 or 2 caseworkers. The CPS would take responsibility for deciding the nature of the charge in all but the most straightforward of cases, which is in line with the recommendations in the report by Lord Justice Auld. A pilot scheme in Halifax has delivered a significant reduction in discontinued cases.

46. This approach has many advantages; lawyers would be in a position to advise on the sufficiency of evidence prior to a charge being preferred. They would also be in a position to advise on the investigative strategy and further enquiries required to support success.

47. The benefits of this, from the point of view of business efficiency, are the reduced costs of failure. The CPS would ensure that the charge is preferred at the appropriate level, particularly in relation to assault cases thereby reducing number of occasions where ‘over charging’ occurs.

48. Currently CJUs within the MPS are engaged in the administration of case files. These units were formed in 1986 to assist with the introduction of the CPS who took over responsibility from the police for the prosecution of offences. At the time it was envisaged that these units would exist for between 12- 18 months until the CPS was fully established. They have remained in existence as an administrative support, co-ordinating case file completion. There is a key opportunity to gain far greater activity from this resource in the completion of right first time case files. This can be achieved by the development of Case Progression Units as outlined in the separate paper to members in regard to the work undertaken by ATOS KPMG. These units would work closely with the CPS lawyers at charging sites.

49. This approach has the potential to deliver all the business benefits of the full Glidewell approach, including lower case attrition in particular discontinuance and the discharge of committal proceedings, reduced cracked and ineffective trials and more offences consequently brought to justice. The delivery would be considerably quicker and with much lower costs. The accommodation required for CPS administration units in the full Glidewell approach would not be utilised, and therefore remain available to support the MPS growth in officer numbers.

50. The introduction of the secure email facility, together with NSPIS case and custody strengthens the argument for this approach further by providing effective, fast and accountable communication in relation to criminal justice with an IT based prosecution file.

51. This option has the support of CPS London, to meet the unique requirements of delivering criminal justice in London. Planned legislation for introduction in 2004, will make the statutory requirement that charges are determined by the CPS.

52. It is recommended that the MPA endorse recommendation 3.

53. It is the declared ambition of the MPS to join up both the operational and policy aspects of the CJ system to ensure that any policy developed centrally can be supported locally. This critical decision resulted in the movement of the entire MPS CJ system from the Policy, Review and Standards (PRS) portfolio to Territorial Policing (TP). With Criminal Justice issues placed within Territorial Policing, the MPS is better able to set the direction for boroughs and manage performance.

54. The new Department of Criminal Justice within Territorial policing has set a target of having CPS lawyers at 20 charging sites by the end of the performance period for 2003-04. To date 15 sites have been identified as having suitable accommodation.

55. The provision of lawyers at the point of charge supports the BOTJ report which recommendations this approach to improve the initial case file product.

56. The ATOS KPMG report recommends that the MPS cease the 15 Glidewell unit approach and focuses on the provision of lawyers at the point of charge together with case progression units.

57. Performance data is still being developed and analysed. It is now being utilised at the regular meetings for MPS criminal justice unit managers. Joint performance meetings with the CPS commenced on 4th February. This will allow joint MPS / CPS monitoring of performance across London.

58. The joint unit at Holborn will remain unchanged in its current form and every opportunity will be taken to explore joint working initiatives. In due course the MPS CJU resource within the unit will be developed into a case progression unit. This will ensure that maximum return is obtained from the investment in personnel asset.

59. The co-location of units at Colindale and Edmonton will follow the same pattern. The reason for continuing with the units on these two boroughs is that the CPS recently restructured their organisation to meet the requirements of the previous strategy around co-location and had committed resources to these two locations. It is not envisaged that continuing with three units operating outside the new vision will in any way impact upon delivery of the new style of working.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. Previously there has been no data available to analyse or support, performance management in relation to criminal justice issues within the MPS. The development of data has been one of the highest priorities for the new Department of Criminal Justice.

2. A new post of criminal justice data analyst is being developed within the department, one of the priorities will be to extract and analyse diversity information from the data and then work to close the gaps.

3. The Department of Criminal Justice is in contact with the Diversity Directorate from a consultancy perspective in relation to diversity issues. The Directorate attends the regular meetings tackling the issue of deaths in police custody.

D. Financial implications

1. There are clear financial implications in this paper, which revolve around the equivalence issues in relation to shared accommodation costs. These aspects are being pursued by PSD and will be the subject of future recommendations to the MPA.

2. The renting of space at both Colindale and Edmonton are also in the negotiation stages between CPS London and PSD, which will also be the subject of future recommendations.

3. The financial costs associated with the implementation of the 15 unit Glidewell model will not be incurred and the enormous space requirements first envisaged will be available to front line officers and essential support staff.

4. In the event that the proposal to accept lawyers at the point of charge is accepted. There may be a limited number of cases where there is no accommodation identified in boroughs. In those cases it is possible that applications may be made to rent modest accommodation.

E. Background papers

Joint Evaluation of the Holborn Glidewell Implementation – Report to MPS Glidewell Programme Manager February 2003 (Not attached)

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander Alan Given, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback