Hampshire County Council Best Value Review Panel (Recreation and Heritage Committee) 28 March 2001 Project Brief - Registration Service Report of the Director of Property, Business and Regulatory Services

Contact: John Fulstow Ext: 6221

1. Goal

1.1 The review seeks to evaluate the Registration Service covering the activities associated with:

· the registration of births, deaths and marriages

· the conduct of civil marriage ceremonies

· the licensing and approval of approved premises

and produce recommendations for improvements.

2. Objectives

2.1 Recommendations will be made in the following areas:

· a strategy for the continuous improvement of the service provided to the general public and other stakeholders, with clear targets and performance measures;

· the most efficient and effective arrangements for the delivery of the service;

· a customer/stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure adequate and continuing feedback is obtained in order to keep the service aligned with changing needs and expectations;

· improved accessibility of the service including physical access, ease of use of the service and the inclusion of hard to reach groups, location of offices, opening hours, making the best use of technology and the feasibility of introducing e-government;

· the effectiveness of the use of the current building stock; and

· an improvement agenda for the longer-term future of the Registration Service.

3. Approach

Methodology

3.1 The Review Team will use business planning together with the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model as the prime diagnostic tools which together will provide an holistic and comprehensive framework. In addition, key performance and management indicators will be identified and compared with other registration service providers. In particular, the Local Government Association has produced a Best Practice Guide for the Registration Service which will be used to assess the current position. The review will also measure performance against all County Council strategies including those for equalities, e-government and sustainable development. A Project Plan showing the key milestones and time-scales is provided as part of this Scoping Report.

Review Team

3.2 The core members of the Review Team are as follows:

John Fulstow Head of Regulatory Services (Lead Officer)

Ros Anderson Quality Manager, Regulatory Services

(Project Manager)

Barbara Botley Registration Services Manager

Diane Cross HM Inspector of Registration

Martha Fowler-Dixon Corporate Best Value Team

Ron Meekings Financial Services, PBR

Val Proctor Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages

/Deputy Superintendent Registrar/Training Officer

Sharon Ricketts Staff Representative/Registrar of Births,

Deaths and Marriages/Deputy Superintendent

Registrar/Training Officer

Howard Short Property Services Manager

3.3 In addition to the above, a member of the Best Value Review Panel (Recreation and Heritage) will be nominated to participate in the review process.

3.4 Other independent and external persons may be invited to join the team to comment on and challenge the review work as it progresses.

Challenge

3.5 The EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) model is being used to challenge service policies and ways of working.

3.6 There is also a need to ensure that all service activity complies with County Council strategies including the new Equalities, E-government and Sustainable Development strategies.

3.7 There has recently been a review by the Government of the Registration Service. The Registrar General is currently looking at different ways of providing the service to the public. Several options have been considered including delivery of the service by local authorities, establishing a separate agency, or dividing the service between other government bodies. Time for primary legislation was scheduled for the 2001/2002 parliamentary year but is dependent upon the impending General Election. There is considerable support for the service to become a local authority function in which case it is important to maintain and continuously improve the service in order to accept and develop this approach.

3.8 However, it is the intention of this Best Value Review to challenge and recommend the best way in which the service activity should be delivered on behalf of the residents of Hampshire. The Registration Service is currently a statutory service led by the Registrar General. The review will look at alternative ways of delivering the service, for example:

· birth and death registrations through other agencies such as funeral directors (for death registrations), hospitals, doctors and midwives (for birth and death registrations);

· licensing of individuals rather than premises to marry people as happens in many other countries;

· service delivery on-line; by forms (for example, as is the current practice for acquiring passports and driving licenses); and use of the telephone for registration purposes;

· improving the effectiveness of links with other organisations (Coroners, other Registration Districts, Hospital Patient Affairs Officers, Doctors Surgeries, the Police, Religious Groups); and

· challenging the current dual role of management between the Registrar General and the County Council.

3.9 The results from the benchmarking and comparison exercises may also highlight areas that can be more cost effective and help ensure that resources are focused and allocated appropriately.

Compare

3.10 The Service is involved with two main comparison exercises:

· the Staffordshire Benchmarking Club involving Staffordshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Hampshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire; and

· the South East Proper Officers Group.

3.11 These will involve benchmarking in regard to time, costs, service procedures and identifying potential for other service enhancements.

Consult

3.12 A workshop of senior managers was held in November 2000 to develop a strategy for stakeholder consultation for all of Regulatory Services. The aim was to ensure we are clear about the outcomes which should be achieved. The resulting proposed consultation strategy for the Registration Service, which will be developed in liaison with the Corporate Communications Team, is as follows:

Key Stakeholder Groups	What We Want to Know	Suggested Consultation Methodology
Primary Users - registration of births and deaths; marriages. Secondary users - information seekers, people wanting duplicate certificates and wedding guests.	Was the process acceptable? Views on accessibility, environment, staff, and nature of process. Potential for electronic process.	Small number of in-depth interviews or focus groups followed by sample survey to quantify findings.
Staff	Feedback on customer views. How can we continuously improve the service? Staff view of priorities. Staff as `internal customers'.	Workplace quality circles. Suggestion scheme. Formal processes to capture customer feedback other than `complaints' and `compliments' that are already captured.
County Councillors	Assess views on the necessity for `local' offices.	Via appropriate sub-committee.
Key Stakeholder Groups	What We Want to Know	Suggested Consultation Methodology
Police, Coroners, Coroners Officers, Hospital Patient Affairs Officers, Doctors Surgeries	Awareness of services and views on process and communications.	Individual interviews.
Approved Premises	How can we improve the `customer experience'? Feedback on the process by which businesses become `approved premises'.	Small number of individual interviews followed by survey to quantify. Develop existing web-site.

Compete

3.13 Competition is not currently applicable in regard to the Registration of Births and Deaths as informants are required by law to register events in the registration district in which they occur.

3.14 However, the Registration Service helps to promote marriage in Hampshire at either Register Offices or at one of the increasing number of attractive approved premises within the County. As such the service is in competition with the facilities offered in other authorities' areas.

3.15 A measure of competitiveness will be obtained from the benchmarking exercises mentioned above.

4. Scope

4.1 The review will examine service provision, management and administrative arrangements to ensure efficiency, economy and effectiveness with regard to:

· the registration of births and deaths; and

· the registration and conduct of civil marriage ceremonies at both Register offices and approved premises.

5. Constraints

5.1 The review will start on 1st April 2001 and will be completed by 30th September 2001.

5.2 The Registration Service is a national statutory service constrained by legislation and the powers of the Registrar General. This constraint also covers the general population which are legally required to use the service for the registration of these life events (births, marriages and deaths).

5.3 The Registration Service can only change the way in which it operates if the law changes. This primary legislation requires an act of Parliament before it can be changed. Therefore, the County Council can only act within the powers delegated to it under this mandate.

5.4 All fees are statutory and set by central Government except for those relating to approved premises licences and marriage fees.

5.5 Members may therefore wish to decide which aspects of the statutory requirements should be concentrated on in the challenge process. These may be subsequently referred to the Registrar General with a view to seeking changes in the law.

6. Dependencies

6.1 There are no known dependencies.

7. Resource Requirements

7.1 The Review Team will undertake the preparatory work and the review. They will be required to prioritise their workload in order to accommodate this. The Service Plan will be adjusted accordingly.

7.2 Additional costs incurred by the review will include:

· Consultation with service users (carried out in-house);

· Consultation with staff; and

· Travel and costs associated with benchmarking with other organisations.