|
|
|
Best Value PolicingWed, September 19, 2001Source: Adrian Leigh, Gary Mundy, Rachel TuffinBest Value Policing: Making Preparations Policing & Reducing Crime Briefing NoteBackgroundBest
value is a statutory duty, from 1 April 2000, on local authorities, fire and
police authorities that aims both to engender closer links between their work
and the priorities of local communities, and encourage continuous improvements
in local service delivery. The legislation requires authorities to review all
their services over five years, in each case ‘challenging’
whether
the service is needed in the first place; ‘consulting’
widely
on its provision; ‘comparing’
it
with other providers’
services;
and examining ‘competitive’
alternatives
(the ‘4Cs’).
Authorities must publish review findings and planned improvement actions, with
measures and targets, in an annual Performance Plan. The
legislation and guidance deliberately
do not prescribe what
mechanisms and techniques are needed to deliver best value. Instead, along with
other public service providers, police authorities and forces must decide how
best to establish their strengths and weaknesses; how to benchmark; what
consultation methods to use; how to produce and carry forward Action
Plans; and so on. Research
aims and methodology In
early 1999, the Home Office Working Group on Police Performance and Best Value
agreed to develop briefing information on best value policing. Recognising the
need for this to draw on practical experiences in the three formal best value
policing pilots and on preparatory work elsewhere in the service, the Working
Group asked the Policing and Reducing Crime (PRC) Unit to explore:
To
address these aims, the research team carried out work in three
phases:
Key
findings One
immediate finding was that all authorities and forces were in the midst of
preparations, but were at differing stages. It was clear, however, that
developments were moving at a very fast pace and the research therefore reflects
a snapshot of how authorities and forces were approaching best value in the
first half of 1999. Furthermore, the findings do not suggest definitive answers
_ instead the key issues authorities and forces said they faced whilst preparing
for best value are drawn out, along with information on how
they had tackled these issues. Although practical examples are described these
are not, therefore, necessarily ‘good
practice’.
Whilst authorities and forces were considering widely different approaches to
best value in April, by July their preparedness and approaches seemed to be
broadly converging, as they started to pilot reviews and encountered similar
issues and difficulties. Key areas where these patterns were emerging
included:
Authorities
and forces were generally aiming to build on existing structures, systems and
cycles, rather than planning radical organisational changes in the first stages
of best value;
Some
were choosing to develop their systems before piloting reviews, whilst others
were doing the reverse _ the end results, however, were broadly similar in terms
of programmes and approaches to review;
Perceptions
of preparedness seemed to be directly related to forces’
experiences
in best value: with those forces most advanced in their preparations more aware
of how much work it involved;
Invariably,
forces were combining various tools and models in a ‘toolkit’,
so that each review was conducted according to the service’s
circumstances;
All
forces were using the Business Excellence Model, though to different extents _
usually as a self-assessment tool. Many were process mapping to identify
activities;
Forces
were taking a hybrid approach to service definition to avoid the disadvantages
of using only one _ reviewing services by function or by taking a process-based
approach (although the picture was complicated by how they combined these
approaches with different review targets and levels);
Reviews
were usually being prioritised according to a combination of
services’
past
performance, their budget size and the potential for savings to be
made;
Increasingly,
forces were forming central teams to oversee best value’s
day-to-day management;
When
resources were limited, however, forces were also tending to let services
self-assess, with support and guidance from the centre;
Authorities
and forces were concluding that review programmes needed to be flexible to take
account of changing circumstances;
Early
pilot reviews were taking longer than expected, but forces had concluded that
time-scales would shorten as they became more used to
them;
There
was increasing evidence of forces and local authorities combining their consultation and even starting to
discuss joint reviews; and
There
were signs, too, that police authorities and forces were developing a closer
working relationship: in some areas police authority members were participating
with forces in regular seminars and in others, taking part in best value
steering groups and in reviews. Alongside
these developments, some common concerns and difficulties were also emerging,
along with some illuminating responses to them:
Forces
were starting to experience the cultural implications of best value. Some staff
_ particularly in support services _ were feeling threatened by the ‘challenge’
and
‘compete’
elements
of reviews, whilst service heads were occasionally reluctant to help reviews.
Many forces were therefore developing force-wide communication strategies to
‘market’
best
value and encouraging staff and staff association participation. Some forces
were also mixing ‘marketing
material’
with
their public consultation to explain policing services and manage the potential
for raised public expectations.
Authorities
and forces were finding that their other planning cycles did not match with
their best value programme. Some however, were addressing this by varying the
length of their review programme to match cycles, such as that for Crime and
Disorder.
Some
police authorities were finding that best value was remaining the preserve of a
minority of members _ they were therefore finding ways to communicate
developments across the authority. To counter the danger that best value might
lead to friction between force and authority, some had agreed their respective
roles and others had joint steering groups.
Some
forces had found they could learn little from local authorities in their area _
so they were examining developments further afield. Others had tried to develop
joint reviews, but had been frustrated by differences in timetables and agendas
_ they had identified the need for earlier planning in the
future.
All
of the tools for best value had their potential disadvantages (in terms of
complexity, relevance or comparability), but forces were accepting that these
models alone were no more than aids, and that some of their faults could be
overcome by combining or adapting them.
In
a number of reviews, forces had found that the data they needed were
unavailable. Some were reacting to this by requiring all services regularly to
self-assess, so that the information would automatically be available once they
were due for review.
Forces
were finding it difficult to benchmark because it was often hard to identify
leading service providers and data were seldom comparable. Accurate benchmarking
would also be assisted by activity costing, but this was still in development
and comparisons were made harder by differing techniques, definitions and
conventions. In particular, however, it was proving difficult to compare police
services with the non-police sector. Despite this, there were many examples of
effective benchmarking between forces, and involving non-police organisations,
that had led to savings. Forces consistently pressed for the establishment of a
national database or website to help them
communicate developments, learn lessons from each other and benchmark
more easily.
It
was sometimes proving difficult to consult effectively on particular services
(because of the nature of the service or reluctance on the part of the user or
stakeholder). Nevertheless, some forces were developing some very innovative and
interactive techniques that could have wider lessons for improving consultation
more generally.
Forces
were finding it hard to envisage applying the ‘compete’
element
of the ‘4Cs’
to
services other than support, because of the nature of policing. However, there
was a growing appreciation that ‘contracting-out’
was
not the only option and evidence that forces were examining alternative
arrangements _ such as ‘comparative
advantage’
agreements
and consortia. Conclusions The
report’s
findings represent only the more commonly described features of
forces’
preparations
for best value. Best value will not come into effect until April 2000
and it
will, therefore, be some time before it is clear which approaches, in what
circumstances, are most likely to
be successful. Throughout the research and even as this briefing note was
published, more issues and potential lessons were emerging. Future research is
planned to follow up developments, but for now this study can only raise issues
and potential responses: it cannot supply all the questions, let alone the
answers. Ultimately, police authorities and forces must bear in mind that they will be judged not on their mechanisms and review approaches, but on whether they are self-reviewing rigorously and improving on the basis of the findings of those reviews. In short, authorities and forces need to deliver best value policing _ the ways by which they do so can differ, but the result must be the same: continuous improvements in service. To view the full paper click the URL below |
|
