Professional Standards Best Value review implementation plan

Report: 4
Date: 11 December 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

The Professional Standards Best Value Review commenced in December 1999 and concluded in November 2000. The work represented a pilot best value review for the MPS and was largely completed before the MPA was established. Consequently, Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee agreed that PSPM Committee should monitor progress and performance once an implementation plan had been prepared and approved. 

This report includes an implementation plan plus summaries of benefits, costs and efficiency savings. 

The review is currently being inspected by HMIC and a draft inspection report for member consideration is expected in January 2002.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Members agree the implementation plan as the basis for monitoring implementation and performance following the best value review (via updates to PSPM Committee in April, August and December 2002);
2. this report is submitted to HMIC to form part of the ongoing inspection of the review;
3. Members approve the submission of a post-implementation review to PSPM Committee in December 2002; and
4. Members note the efficiency savings and non-financial benefits arising from the DPS best value review and related work.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Best Value Review commenced in December 1999 and concluded in November 2000. The Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) was set up formally in October 2000 and DPS corporate standards were implemented across the MPS in September 2001.

2. The review was a pilot for the MPS and much of the methodology had to be developed whilst the review was in progress. The lessons learned during the review have now been taken forward by other best value reviews.

3. A key lesson which has emerged is the need to manage the boundaries between a best value review and other projects / management initiatives. However, given that the review served as a driver, enabler or catalyst for changes within DPS, the implementation plan at Appendix 1 brings together key changes within the DPS into a single document. Summaries of benefits, costs and efficiency savings are presented at Appendices 2–4.

4. Members will be aware that best value reviews are subject to inspection by HMIC. HMIC is currently inspecting the work and it is proposed that, subject to member approval, this report should be made available. HMIC intends to submit draft findings to the MPA in January 2002 and HMIC guidelines (s2.3.1) state that members should be satisfied that the plan:

• is measurable;
• is properly constructed and costed;
• will produce improvements in the service;
• fits the strategic direction of the force;
• will be adequately monitored (including accountability for monitoring);
• is achievable.

Summary of findings

5. A summary report of the review was presented to PSPM Committee at its meeting in 9 January 2001 (report 7). The findings of the review were also presented in the DPS summary report for the review (May 2001):

• Areas for improvement were identified to increase performance of the MPS service delivery for complaints investigation;
• The roles, skill profile and working practices of the Borough Support Complaints Units need to be more closely aligned to meet service delivery requirements;
• A more comprehensive planning framework is required to link the objectives of the complaints function and the best value objectives;
• A flatter senior management structure in the new Directorate would improve accountability and parity in the decision making process across London;
• Implementation of corporate standards to the complaint process would ensure corporacy, reduction in bureaucracy and improved efficiency.

Summary of costs

6. The costs of the review, implementation to-date and proposed implementation are presented at Appendix 3. Most of the expenditure is in the form of 'opportunity costs' (the cost of staff time carrying out the work) and in total amount to £672,000.

Summary of benefits

7. The anticipated benefits arising from the review are presented at Appendix 2. A number of benefits remain to be quantified and, as reported in the implementation plan at Appendix 1, a report will be prepared by February 2002 for consideration by the DPS implementation project board.

8. Where these benefits take the form of cashable or non-cashable efficiency savings the financial details are shown at Appendix 4. These include:

• £763,000 of annual cashable efficiency savings when DPS borough support is fully restructured in 2002/03 with approximately 90% of these savings being delivered by March 2002;
• Delivery to-date of £972,000 of annual non-cashable efficiency savings due to reducing the number of suspended officers plus £86,000 by reducing ACPO involvement in complaints.

9. The reduction in the number of suspended officers was achieved by:

• consistent decision making and monthly reviews by senior managers;
• a clear suspension policy;
• more use of officers on restricted duties in 'front-line' roles; and
• reductions in the time taken to complete investigations.

10. The total full-year cashable and non-cashable efficiency savings amount to £1.8m which offset the estimated £0.7m costs of review and implementation as described at Appendix 3.

Calculation of efficiency savings

11. The efficiency savings reported at Appendix 4 (and above) follow the advisory guidance notes on costing for efficiency planning purposes, as circulated by the ACPO Finance and Resources Committee on 3 December 1998. Enquiries with Home Office officials have confirmed that this is the current guidance.

12. The guidelines state that cashable efficiency savings can be claimed when there has been a complete loss of police posts or where a post is undertaken by a lower ranking officer (or a member of the civil staff). The overall test is whether or not there has been a reduction in the appropriate budget.

13. The guidelines state that non-cashable efficiency savings can be claimed when officer time is re-directed into front-line policing services (as defined by a set list of such services).

14. The gross savings in staff costs are subject to a pension adjustment, which reflects the Home Office requirement to take account of the falling staff pension contributions when staff numbers are reduced or ranks are reduced. Savings on future employer's pension liabilities are not included at present.

15. Savings have been calculated by comparing the original staffing allocations for 2001 with the projected levels following implementation of the new structures of 4 BSC branches, each with 4 investigative teams of 1 inspector, 3 sergeants and 2 constables. The figures are calculated at current price levels and full-year effect to give an annual saving.

16. The saving based on reducing the number of suspended officers was calculated using the average pay for PCs. In practice this saving would be higher when analysed by rank of officer suspended.

Demonstrating and delivering efficiency savings

17. As far as non-cashable savings are concerned in the 12 months up to the start of the review an average of 113.5 officers were suspended at an annual (opportunity) cost of £3.9m. In the 12 months to October 2001, this was reduced to 85.3 officers at an annual cost of £2.9m (Appendix 4, Table 2)

18. The cashable efficiency savings mainly reflect reductions in the numbers and ranks of police officers engaged in managing and investigating complaints. However, there are a number of practical difficulties in demonstrating the overall impact on the DPS budget due to:

• the accounting practices previously used by the MPS;
• the difficulties in establishing a comparable financial baseline given that the Directorate was formed following the amalgamation of five area complaints units into a single command.

19. The delivery of savings with respect to the MPA budget are problematic given the need to increase the number of police officers. The review has freed up officers for re-deployment but this does not reduce the budget for policing.

20. It is unclear how best to deliver certain savings (eg via civilianisation) from best value reviews whilst maintaining a designated number of police officers. It is understood that similar issues are emerging from the best value review of crime management and members will be discussing the matter with MPS senior officers as part of the debate on the police reform programme.

Implementation plan

21. Appendix 1 shows the high-level implementation plan for DPS Borough Support Command (BSC). Further explanations of the activities and products shown on the plan are attached at Appendix 5.

Reporting progress and performance

22. The plan at Appendix 1 is presented as an initial description of key work. It is proposed that further updates, reflecting any member feedback on the format and level of detail in the plan, will be submitted to PSPM meetings in April, August and December 2002.

23. In addition, an implementation project board will meet bi-monthly (four weeks before each MPA PSPM meeting), chaired by Commander Philip Hagon. The board will include staff from DPS, MPS Best Value Support Team and MPS Consultancy Group.

C. Financial implications

The opportunity costs for continued implementation are estimated at £274,000 (Appendix 3, Table 2). This excludes a notional cross-charge of £23,000 for the evaluation of the Norbury development site. The proposed post-implementation review has not yet been costed.

D. Background papers

• Best value review - police complaints (Report 7 PSPM Committee 9 January 2001)
• Best value review (DPS summary report, May 2001):

E. Contact details

Report authors: Superintendent Tony Dawson, MPS.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 5: Notes on implementation plan

A1: Restructure borough support command (BCS)

Inspectors and constables have now been recruited for all the Borough Support branches. Emerging findings are that inspectors are as capable as chief inspectors as Investigating Officers, and that there is a clear role for constables, though not in the numbers originally envisaged. Therefore the standard investigative team structure will be 1 inspector, 3 sergeants and 2 constables. It is intended to supplement this with 1 administrative officer, if staff can be released from the admin units as a result of implementing the Corporate Standards. Each team is aligned to an average of 2 boroughs.

A2: Review of discipline office

Best Value principles are currently being applied to a review of the DPS Discipline Office. This is included in the implementation costs, though the savings have not yet been calculated. The principles will be steadily extended to other parts of DPS, including the newly formed Claims and Tribunals Command. This work will also be overseen by the DPS Best Value implementation project board.

B1: Norbury development site and B3: post-implementation review

It was originally intended to pilot a new investigative team structure and Corporate Standards at Norbury (the DPS South-East branch), and have them evaluated by MPS Consultancy, before rolling out the structure to the other 4 BSC branches. Due to delays in recruiting the necessary officers, it was decided to treat this branch as a development and evaluation site, and to implement the changes at all 5 branches in 2001. Thus the pan-London implementation will be achieved earlier than expected.

MPS Consultancy will report quarterly on the Norbury (DPS SE) development site, with the final report due in August 2002. A Post-Implementation Review of the whole Best Value exercise will be commissioned for autumn 2002.

C1: Corporate standards

The Corporate Standards were implemented across London at the start of September 2001. These set out the processes for all aspects of complaints investigation. A rigorous risk assessment process was incorporated in August 2001 into the DPS decision logs, which are used for all investigations.

C3: Performance framework

The DPS BSC performance management framework was introduced this summer, including 60 & 100 day reviews of all investigations. The framework needs to be supported by both inspection and training. The inspection regime is an adaptation of the standard MPS Level 1 and 2 inspections, with occasional thematic inspections and investigative reviews commissioned by chief officers. The level 2 inspections on corporate standards, decision logs, and case review are considered critical to implementation.

C6: Training

A training course for IOs has been designed and the first 2-week course will be run at the Detective Training School in December 2001, for 6 IOs and 2 PCA Members, as it will greatly assist piloting the investigation element of the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) proposals. It is intended to seek National Crime Faculty validation, and to run this course quarterly for IOs and sergeants. Senior BSC management and some IOs will also join the Senior Investigating Officer development programme. Constables in BSC have been encouraged to join the detective training programme, as they thereby receive full investigative training without DPS having to design or deliver it.

D2: Benchmarking; E2: management information and E3: workload analysis

The performance framework is supported by monthly management information published on the Intranet and weekly information on Investigating Officer (IO) workloads. Early in 2002 IO performance information will be available. The work will also be supported through benchmarking with other forces.

E1: Satisfaction surveys

Satisfaction surveys of complainants and officers were designed and have awaited the implementation of 'Corporate Standards'. They will be run quarterly from the start of 2002.

E4: Ethical health check

An ethical health audit is scheduled quarterly, to inspect fairness to complainants and officers, ethical management of investigations, and the data quality of all records.

E6: Quantify benefits

The summary of benefits at Appendix 2 includes the benefits realised so far, and the main benefits expected. The benefits and efficiency savings will be quantified wherever it is possible without disproportionate cost. Performance information will then be developed and monitored. The MPA will be regularly updated on the overall efficiency savings and the key non-financial benefits.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback