Archived decisions

Contact: Stuart Roberts (Review Team Leader), ext 6782

1. Summary

1.1 This report presents the Outcomes and Improvement Plan resulting from phase three of the Best Value Review of Policy Development in the Environment Department. On 5 March 2003 this Committee received a report outlining options for improvement. The Committee endorsed the preparation of an Improvement Plan based on Option 2 (service delivery by in-house staff plus structural change) with consideration, where appropriate, of Option 3 (transfer to consultants of the areas of policy work most suited to external provision). This report describes that Improvement Plan (attached) for consideration by Members. It is this attachment on which Members are asked to focus their attention.

2. Introduction

2.1 The vision for the review is to create a service which by 2005 matches the following specification:

(i) The policy development service has a vision for a sustainable Hampshire which is clearly linked with the community and corporate strategies, and which is owned by Members, managers and staff.

(ii) In pursuit of that vision, the service undertakes a range of statutory and non-statutory work, striving for excellence and innovation.

(iii) Plans and policies are up-to-date, socially inclusive and provide an effective and positive framework for decision making. They explicitly state how they link with the vision, with each other and with the relevant plans and policies of other agencies.

(iv) Residents, businesses and environmental organisations are kept informed and engaged in the process of policy making and review from the outset.

(v) There is a clear overall direction for the service and rigorous prioritisation within its work programme. Its managers are visible, approachable, responsive and performance-orientated.

(vi) The service is adequately resourced to undertake its tasks. Its staff are appropriately qualified, equipped, trained and rewarded.

(vii) The service provides good value for money and continually strives to evolve and improve to reflect changing priorities and good practice elsewhere.

2.2 The issues/outcomes identified following the challenge phase of the review are:

(i) `joined-up' working and internal/external communications, including e-government;

(ii) speeding up the process of preparing policies;

(iii) community engagement, consultation methods and transparency of decision making;

(iv) monitoring and implementation of policy and monitoring of the service's performance;

(v) costs and comparisons with others; and

(vi) external provision/working in partnership.

3. Progress in Phase Three of the Review

3.1 Following the decision by this Committee on which option should provide the basis for the Improvement Plan, the core review team of Environment Department officers re-visited the issues and concerns raised by internal and external stakeholders during the challenge phase. A series of team meetings was held to `brainstorm' ideas for improvements to address these issues and concerns. Improvements were also identified to take forward the four corporate themes of e-government, equalities, crime and disorder, and sustainable development. Discussions with officers in Corporate IT and Personnel helped with the shaping of improvements to achieve e-government and equalities respectively.

3.2 The core review team also drew up performance indicators for inclusion in the Improvement Plan. This was not an easy task, because policy development is not a frequently recurring nor homogenous process and thus does not readily lend itself to conventional performance monitoring. Measuring the quality of the service's output - the true indicator of its worth - is extremely difficult because it requires subjective judgement. For example, those for and against development may take opposing views of the quality of a policy document.

3.3 The absence of the service's current performance in relation to the indicators is a major impediment to setting targets for future performance; without knowing current performance it is difficult to set future targets which are stretching yet potentially achievable.

3.4 Meetings of the Environment Department's Strategy Branch Management Team and the Extended Review Team (consisting additionally of six county councillors, two officers from other County Council departments and two officers from other authorities) also helped to identify and prioritise the improvements, and refine the performance indicators.

3.5 The review team decided to consult with internal and external stakeholders on a draft improvement plan before presenting it to this Committee. This is a departure from corporate guidelines for best value reviews, but the review team felt that this would strengthen the validity of the Improvement Plan and increase stakeholders' ownership of the Best Value Review. The comments received from internal and external stakeholders have been most helpful in producing the definitive Improvement Plan which is attached.

4. Improvement Plan

4.1 The attached Improvement Plan sets out actions to improve the service and the performance indicators to measure the extent of improvement achieved. Both are structured around the issues/outcomes identified after the challenge phase of the review (listed in paragraph 2.2).

4.2 The Extended Review Team has added a seventh outcome - innovative, inclusive and integrated policies.

4.3 Outcome 1 is the development of a communication strategy, the enhancement of information on Hantsweb and Hantsnet 2000, and actions to improve joined-up working and staff awareness of policies outside their own immediate area. A clearer sense of direction for the service and publication annually of a Forward Plan of the service's planned activities are other proposed improvements. Work is starting on a departmental communications strategy; most of the other actions would be implemented by the time of the first progress report to this Committee in March 2004. Performance will be measured by the proportion of policy documents available on the internet, staff awareness of other policy areas, and customer and public awareness of policy documents.

4.4 Outcome 2 is the speeding up of the process of preparing policies. Government regulations on the preparation of statutory plans (eg requiring public consultation at various stages) constrains the scope for speeding up the process. However, the Improvement Plan envisages that the preparation and monitoring of formal project plans, project management training for project managers, and greater use of administration/technical staff for routine tasks could speed up plan preparation. Streamlining Member decision-making and developing a culture amongst Members and officers that speed of policy development is important would also help. Some of these actions are already in hand; the rest will be completed by March 2004. There is a national Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI200) which relates to this Outcome. Two additional local indicators are proposed; the time taken from the start to adoption of key plans and the proportion of project managers trained in project management techniques.

4.5 Outcome 3 is to improve community engagement, consultation methods and transparency of decision-making. The appointment of a dedicated `Consultation Co-ordinator' is proposed, together with a customer charter setting out how individuals and organisations can expect to be involved in policy development. The latter will include an `inclusivity protocol' addressing the needs of minority interests. All these are to be in place by June 2004. Performance indicators will measure the satisfaction of consultees and the wider community with consultation processes, together with the level of participation by Hampshire residents and minority groups in consultation.

4.6 For ease of understanding, Outcome 4 has been sub-divided into 4a `monitoring and implementation of policy' and 4b `monitoring of the service's performance'. The former envisages each new policy having a target indicator to enable its implementation to be monitored and for the resulting conclusions to be published annually. The formulation of Hampshire quality of life indicators will help monitor the outcome of the service's activities overall. The service's performance (Outcome 4b) will be monitored though regular service users/public satisfaction surveys, the establishment of a customer representative group and an internal officer group to spearhead and monitor continuous improvement. The Extended Review Team would continue to meet quarterly to monitor the implementation of the Improvement Plan and its effectiveness. All these actions would be implemented by March 2004 except for the full portfolio of monitoring reports; recognising that devising monitoring indicators for plans which do not currently have them will take some time and require careful thought.

4.7 Outcome 5 concerns costs and comparisons with others. This will be pursued though participation in benchmarking clubs, holding exchange visits with comparator county councils, and regular reviews of the potential for working with consultants. Performance would be measured primarily by the County Council's position in the league table of service costs per head of population.

4.8 Outcome 6 concerns external provision/working in partnership. The costs of service delivery by consultants and in-house staff will be reviewed annually. The potential for and value of partnership working will be reviewed regularly (and be explored in every project plan - Outcome 2). A system of post-project evaluation of consultants would be introduced. More detailed comparisons of in-house and consultants' costs are to be undertaken to inform the drawing up of targets for performance.

4.9 Outcome 7 is to secure innovative, inclusive and integrated policies. Actions to that end include learning from other authorities' experience, the evaluation of advanced computer software to model policy scenarios, the formulation of an overarching vision for a sustainable Hampshire to which all new policy documents would be linked, and techniques to ensure that new policy documents are in plain English and address equalities issues. All except the evaluation of computer modelling software will be implemented by March 2004. Performance indicators will be customer satisfaction with the readability and presentation of documents, and with the relevance and usefulness of the policies therein.

4.10 During the challenge phase, stakeholders raised issues which are outside the remit of the Best Value Review. The external stakeholders' workshop held in November 2001, ranked as priority 6 (in its list of 13 issues) the improvement of pay levels commensurate with skills. The equivalent workshop for non-managerial staff held in January 2002 raised concerns about the low budget for training, and that the only way for senior professionals to secure better pay is to take on management responsibility. It was argued that they should be equally valued as experienced professionals. These issues are departmental or corporate issues which have been referred to the appropriate chief officer for consideration.

5. Outsourcing

5.1 Outsourcing has been considered in depth as part of this review; it formed 2 of the 4 options presented to the last meeting of this Committee. Keeping under regular review the opportunities for using or partnering with consultants is an action in the Improvement Plan (Outcome 5).

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Improvement Plan contains a substantial package of actions which should lead to significant improvements in the service, address the issues and concerns of stakeholders, and help achieve the vision for the service. They will require significant resources if they are to be implemented. With the Improvement Plan making its debut shortly after budgets for the year have been finalised, no specific provision has been made to resource its actions. However, most of the actions for implementation by March 2004 are either already under way (some as part of department-wide initiatives or arising from the Transport Network Improvements Best Value Review) or can be undertaken as part of existing work. The actions envisaged for year two (2004/05) require more substantial resources, for which provision will need to be made in that year's departmental budget.

6.2 County Councillors who are members of the Extended Review Team were concerned that implementation of the Improvement Plan and its effectiveness should be externally monitored. One of the actions in the improvement plan is therefore that a Member `Implementation Monitoring Group' should be established, to meet approximately quarterly during the period of its implementation.

6.3 This Group would build on the work on the Extended Review Team and maintain the close Member overview which the latter ensured during review. The Group would have the authority to adjust the Improvement Plan in the light of monitoring its implementation and the rapidly changing external environment. The first meeting of this Group is planned for October, when it will establish future performance targets in the light of the surveys of existing performance this summer.

6.4 The review has taken 19 months to complete. The project brief envisaged the Options for improvement being considered by this Committee in March 2002 with the Improvement Plan being completed before the end of that year. The actual dates for these events have been March 2003 and May 2003 respectively. The delay has been due to a combination of factors: conflicting pressures on the team members from their `day jobs', changes in corporate methodology for best value reviews midway through this one, and the implementation in parallel of a reorganisation of the Environment Grouping/Department which necessitated a pause in the review programme last autumn. Some lost time has been recovered, however, by faster progress from the Options stage to the Improvement Plan stage than envisaged in the project brief.

6.5 Finally, the core review team takes the opportunity of this report to reflect on the process of conducting the review. The process is very lengthy and bureaucratic, which as a consequence is very resource intensive (230 person days of the core review team officers' time - at a cost of around £50,000). Progress has at times been hampered by best value work being squeezed out by the pressures of the `day job'. The duration of the review also meant discontinuity of review team membership, with three of the original core team of seven officers leaving for new jobs elsewhere during the review. An alternative approach used by some other local authorities is a fast track review undertaken in, say, three months by a dedicated team of officers seconded from their day jobs for the duration of the review. The service planning approach being piloted in Minerals and Waste Development Control provides another alternative.

7977/SR