Contact: Jenny Heath, Corporate Performance Manager, ext 7402

1 Purpose of this report

1.1 This annual report provides the proposed schedule of Best Value reviews for the forthcoming financial year, indicating any areas of work which carry forward from the current year into the next. (See appendix.)

1.2 The report also identifies the extent to which Members have been involved in the process of review and proposes changes to support continuing political leadership of service improvement.

2 The Best Value Programme for this Committee

2.1 At its meeting on 23 December 2003, the Cabinet approved the Hampshire Improvement Programme. This incorporated a streamlined Best Value review programme, based on a revised approach, agreed by Cabinet at its meeting on 17 December 2001, and on changes in legislation, which removed the need for all council services to be reviewed within a five year period.

2.2 The Best Value review programme began in April 2000. In the following paragraphs, years are related to this start date as follows:

Year 2 2001/02

Year 3 2002/03

Year 4 2003/04

2.3 Cabinet agreed to the deletion of the following two year 3 reviews originally scheduled for this committee.

2.3.1 The `Managing change' review was anticipated to cover activity in the Corporate Performance Team, organisational development activity in the Personnel and Training Department and internal communications work. On reflection this would have been duplicating other work:

· Meeting the CPA and audit recommendations in relation to performance management

· The implementation of the People Strategy and the re-organisation of Hampshire Training Solutions

· The implementation of the internal communications strategy, monitored by the Corporate Performance Steering Group

· The Corporate Policy Unit piloting the new service planning regime.

2.3.2 Following considerable debate with representatives from all departments, it was agreed that the review of `Human resources in a changing environment' would duplicate work currently underway in the SAP Enterprise Project and in the People Strategy. However, the need for a post-implementation review has been flagged up for future consideration.

2.4 Cabinet agreed to add the review of community engagement on the following grounds.

· To provide a cross-organisational review responding to the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), Corporate Assessment Team's recommendation to capitalise on existing consultation and external communications to develop full community engagement

Initial research is planned to identify `centres of excellence' in other local authorities, which can inform an approach to this review that is inherently challenging and that will address the CPA recommendation. It is, therefore, too early to identify an appropriate review team and timescale for the review.

2.5 This committee has received final reports on its remaining year 3 reviews, with the exception of the Democratic Services Review which is scheduled to report on the options for improvement in May 2003.

3 Member involvement in reviews

3.1 The importance of member involvement in Best Value reviews was endorsed by the Corporate Assessment Team, who evaluated the Council's `corporate capacity' as a key element of the CPA process. They recommended that

`In order to improve evidence-based policy development and prioritisation, the Council should:

· Make more use of formal political scrutiny to explore alternatives to existing policies and strategies.'

3.2 As agreed by this Committee at its meeting on 26 February 2002, four members were identified to be involved in each review, ensuring member representation at meetings, on the understanding that it would not always be possible to schedule meetings to suit all member diaries.

3.3 Compared with Year 2 of Best Value, when the changes in the constitution and the local elections had hampered full involvement, Year 3 has seen greater participation in the review meetings.

3.3.1 International Relations:

Cllrs Cartwright, Collett, Glen, Pierce and Roberts were initially nominated to participate in the review. Cllr Glen was replaced by Cllr Leversha and all then participated during the review.

3.3.2 Democratic Services

Cllrs Cartwright, Hayes, Heath and Wall were initially nominated to participate in the review. This review has not yet completed.

3.3.3 Regulatory Services

Cllrs Bryant, Devereux, Luffman and Barron were initially nominated to participate in the review. Cllrs Bryant, Devereux and Luffman have been able to participate during the review.

3.4 The emphasis in the future Best Value review programme is on areas of service which cross organisational boundaries. It has proved challenging to maintain the cross-cutting perspective following the completion of earlier cross-cutting reviews, yet in many cases this has been identified as a key factor in improving services. A common mechanism has been to establish corporate groups to monitor the improvement plan and to continue to consider opportunities for further improvement.

3.5 It is proposed that one member, who was originally involved in the review, should participate in the relevant group, providing member `championship' of improvement plans for cross-cutting services. This will enhance and not detract from the annual reporting of progress to the policy review committee, which is an integral part of preparing the Best Value Performance Plan.

Recommendation

1 That the deletion of the reviews of `Managing Change' and `Human Resources in a Changing Environment' is noted and that consequently Cllrs Davidovitz, Dash, Ellis, House, Kendal, Luffman and Roberts will not be called upon to particpate in review meetings on these topics.

2 That four members indicate their preference for involvement in the following Year 4 Best Value review:

· Community Engagement

3 That the committee endorse the principle of member `championship' of the improvement plans for cross-cutting reviews.