HMIC Best Value Review Inspections

Report: 11
Date: 09 September 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

This report summarises the findings of HMIC’s inspections of the best value reviews of Bringing Offenders to Justice and Managing Demand and presents a response to the recommendations for change.

A. Recommendations

That the actions suggested in response to HMIC’s recommendations be approved.

B. Supporting information

Best value reviews

1. The best value review of Bringing Offenders to Justice (BOTJ) was carried out between September 2001 and December 2002. The review focused on making improvements to the care of victims and witnesses and the contribution of the police to the criminal justice system. The review made a number of recommendations including setting up a single Criminal Justice Unit, the introduction of Prisoner Processing Teams and CPS lawyers at the point of charge. Many of the initiatives recommended by the review were quickly implemented through the MPS’ existing structures and progress has been reported back to members through the Criminal Justice Update report, which is considered at each Planning, Performance and Review Committee.

2. The best value review of Managing Demand was completed between July 2002 and May 2003. The review covered how members of the public access MPS services and how the borough response to such demands can be improved. The main recommendations concerned the introduction of a single non-emergency number and a help desk function, changes to the staffing and experience level of response teams, single crewing and a new call grading protocol. Implementation reports detailing progress against each recommendation have been considered by PPRC at six monthly intervals since the final report was approved.

HMIC inspections

3. HMIC inspected the best value reviews of Bringing Offenders to Justice and Managing Demand in November 2003 and January 2004 respectively. HMIC make two judgments on best value reviews – one on the quality of the service provided and one on how likely it is to improve following the review. Both services were graded as ‘fair’ and both were given ‘uncertain’ prospects for improvement. The Bringing Offenders to Justice judgment was downgraded from ‘promising’ following the initial feedback session to the Authority. The inspection reports are attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to this paper.

4. Although highlighting many positive achievements HMIC were particularly concerned by the implementation of both reviews. They considered that the Bringing Offenders to Justice review had been overtaken by an Atos KPMG report entitled ‘Blueprint for Change’. ‘HMIC has concluded that certain recommendations from BOTJ are being carried forward, but only those that coincide with recommendations in Blueprint for Change...the BVR does not drive improvement...The inspection was left in no doubt by the DoCJ (Department of Criminal Justice) that BOTJ was not seen as a major influence on CJ policy.’ Commenting on PPRC’s oversight of the implementation of the review HMIC stated that ‘A review of the minutes of these committee meetings throughout 2003 showed there was little attention paid to the report after it had been presented’.

5. The Managing Demand inspection report revealed similar concerns. HMIC identified a ‘lack of drive towards implementation of recommendations’ and ‘An apparent lack of Management Board commitment and involvement in Best Value to create the impetus to ensure implementation’. HMIC also found ‘Given the current list of items at PPRC...a lack of robust accountability for implementation of Best Value recommendations by the MPA.’

6. HMIC made six recommendations for improvement, which are listed in Appendix 3. The MPS has been asked to comment on how each of these recommendations can be implemented and this response is also listed in Appendix 3. The MPA’s response to the recommendations is also contained within this appendix.

7. Since the reviews were completed, the MPA and MPS have put systems in place to ensure that reviews have clear objectives, compare internationally where relevant and report on implementation in public to an agreed template at regular intervals. However, the progress that has been made on implementing reviews has been slower than expected in many cases. According to the current best value guidance, reviews must aim to make ‘significant improvements’ in performance. To date the MPA has invested over £1.5m in opportunity costs in best value reviews and currently it is difficult to demonstrate what significant improvements have been delivered as a result of this investment. The Audit Commission has indicated they will begin an audit of best value implementation in the autumn. In order to ensure that the mechanisms for delivering improvements are as robust as those for monitoring performance, it is recommended that the MPA carry out a review of the implementation of all improvement projects including reviews, scrutinies and audit recommendations in conjunction with the MPS.

C. Race and equality impact

HMIC did not comment on equality and diversity implications in either of these reviews. However, under the revised best value arrangements all new reviews are required to complete full equality impact assessments to ensure equalities issues are formally considered and documented.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report authors: Sally Palmer, MPA (020 7202 0212)

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback