46
Appendix A - Project Outline Document See embedded document below Criminal Justice POD Final V2 (2).docx
Appendix A - Project Outline Document See embedded document below
Criminal Justice POD
Final V2 (2).docx
Appendix B – Phase 1 Options See embedded document below
Phase 1 Options.pdf
Appendix D – Risk Register Risk Cause Effect Mitigation
Failure to maintain operational delivery and / or a performance failure
A failure to effectively consider the short and long-term impacts of the CJ changes may affect delivery /performance.
Failure to adequately engage with Local Policing in the change process
Failure to adequately engage with key internal and external stakeholders
CJS partners may lose confidence in the police
Unnecessary additional changes may be required
Cases will fail due to inappropriate action being taken
Regular tactical and project meetings to discuss on-going risks, mitigation of issues and opportunities.
Open lines of communication between all key stakeholders.
A loss of experienced staff both within the project team and CJ Business As Usual (BAU)
There is a risk that there may be an increased staff turnover, impacting on delivery of the Target Operating Model (TOM) and realisation of benefits
Lack of strategy to promote staff morale during the change process
Failure to develop a strategy to promote the retention of skilled, experienced staff
Project team staff required to return periodically to substantive operational roles
The full benefits of the project are unlikely to be realised and operational delivery may fail
CJ Project team members may be extracted to other duties impacting on the project’s ability to implement the agreed Phase 1 TOM within the timescales
Consideration to be given to Cambs and Herts staff to work remotely at current locations within the Digital Admin Services (typing services) function
Consultation with staff support groups and active engagement with staff will continue.
Staffing demands regarding project team abstractions flagged to Chief Officers.
Position being advertised for an additional Athena Project Manager for CJ.
Inadequate resourcing of the new business model
There is a risk that the staffing requirements per the TOM are not in place at implementation as a result of an inability to resource to the required levels.
Turnover in staff per the risk above
A lack of inadequately skilled staff may impact on performance and the delivery of benefits following implementation
Ensure that vacancies are managed appropriately with HR lead.
Drop in sessions, CJ bulletins and other communications will help reassure staff and prevent them leaving prematurely. "To-Be" processes and modelling have taken place to determine correct staffing levels.
Estates – the impact of the CJ and other collaboration projects on the estates capability of BCH
There is a risk that there may be limited estate options for delivery of the TOM as a result of a significant number of projects with estates’ dependencies
Unaligned estates strategy across BCH to effectively deal with multiple impacts
Estate requirements for the delivery of Athena training are significant and any delay to the training may increase the estate impact on CJ
May impact on the delivery of the most effective structure
Early engagement with estates leads to keep abreast of the available estate options.
Close liaison with Athena L&D group
Failure to successfully implement a number of new CJS initiatives There is a reliance on successful implementation of new CJ initiatives and other collaboration projects by operational policing areas across BCH CJ is reliant on the successful implementation of a number of new initiatives. The success of these is outside the control of
Incorrect implementation of initiatives such as Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ) and Electronic Witness Statements (EWS) to reduce demand into the collaborated CJ model
Detrimental impact on the performance of the collaborated CJ function
Regular feedback to staff and managers
Post implementation review of initiatives and impact on the new TOM
Monitor impact of other BCH collaboration projects on quality, initiatives and change in processes
Risk Cause Effect Mitigation
the CJ project and may impact upon the performance of the
collaborated CJ.
High implementation costs
There is a risk that the specific staffing profile of Criminal Justice may result in high pension strain costs as a result of a reduction in staffing
A significant number of long-term staff in the staffing profile
High pension costs impacting on savings
Monitor pension strain implications during consultation phase
Decrease in CJ productivity and/or performance at the time of implementation and Athena
There is a risk that CJ productivity and/or performance may be adversely impacted as a result of the pressures in implementation of Athena at the same time as the Phase 1 CJ collaboration model
The implementation of Athena and Phase 1 CJ at the same time with key staff being involved in both
The CJ teams are business critical, so any reduction in performance could cause the public and staff further strain
The phased approach to CJ collaboration has been agreed which mitigates the risk
Open lines of communication maintained between all key stakeholders
New technology failing to deliver
There is a risk that the new technology requirements will not deliver as needed and ICT may not have the capacity to assist in CJ collaboration implementation and Athena due to competing priorities
ICT capacity issues and incorrect projections of the impact of new technology.
CJ Phase 1 functions could be understaffed as calculations are based on assumptions around new technology.
Assistance from ICT and business users where applicable.
ICT implications highlighted to strategic leads early to allow prioritisation where appropriate.
Early identification of go-live dates
Increase in demand
There is a risk that there may be an increase in number of processes CJ as a result of CPS having withdrawn from the Early Guilty Plea scheme in Beds and Herts in preparation for Better Case Management
Withdrawal from Early Guilty Plea scheme by CPS Increase in the processes
that CJ staff will need to carry out
Reduced timeframes to carry out the processes
Monitor situation and engage with all stakeholders
Appendix E – Current state assessment
A full current state assessment of the phase 1 functions has been undertaken.
The tables below provide a summary of the current state assessment for each Phase 1 function to include; current staffing; current cost per member of staff; unit cost (where known); best practice and gaps in current service provision. Typing Services
Force Post description Grade No. of staff (FTE)
Total budget
(£000)
Average cost per summary (£)
Beds Team Leader Secretariat
Scale 5 1
£ 110.88 Secretarial assistant
Scale 3 4.62
Commissioned Services (NJC)
Cambs *Team Leader SO2 0.14
£ 64.93 Evidential Audio Typist
Scale 3 5
Commissioned Services (NJC)
Herts Tape Summariser Supervisor
A4 1
£ 164.64 Tape Summariser
A3 10.13
Word Processing Operator
A2 5.08
Total 26.97 753.76
Formula: Av. monthly cost of relevant staff and commissioned services/Av. number of ROTIs and Summaries processed (over 8 months Sept 14 – April 15) = Av. cost per month. *The team leader role (Cambs) has not been included in the baseline budget figure for Phase 1 functions as this post will be include in Phase 2 CJ functions. Herts appear to be the most expensive for the following reasons:
The pay grade of the staff employed to ‘summarise’ interviews is higher (£7K per person higher than Cambs);
The proportion of summaries against transcripts is higher for Herts (89% summaries vs
66% in Cambs and 76% in Beds);
No services are commissioned from an external provider in Herts.
Typing Services – service provision
Criteria Description
Current position
1 site in Beds (Luton)
1 site in Cambs (Peterborough)
1 site in Herts (Hatfield)
Current purpose
Includes all functions relating to typing of summaries, statements or transcripts where required during the preparation and progression of a case.
Summary of best practice
Cambs – co-location with Tape library (TL), which reduces the admin required to obtain a suspect interview; and the faster time taken to prepare summaries
Beds – the criteria used for commissioning service (shorter interviews in less serious cases), which has been endorsed by Court Service Managers; and co-location with TL
Herts – the monitoring of timeliness and delivery dates ensuring case material is delivered to CPS within agreed timescales
Summary of gaps in current service provision/or inefficiency
Cambs – the overall percentage of transcripts being prepared is too high. Feedback from CJS partners would suggest 15% is an acceptable maximum level. Cambs are currently preparing an average of 34% transcripts. Transcripts are cheaper to prepare but can lengthen the trial in Crown Court, because the whole interview is read out to the jury rather than the presentation of a shorter summary. This results in longer abstractions for Police officers and additional work for CJS partners, incurring additional costs.
Beds – the submission of material to CPS is often not achieved within agreed timescales. This increases the risk of cases failing.
Herts – take a considerable taken on admin process and with duplicating information on numerous spread sheets. Herts also take the longest time to summarise interviews on av. 9 mins per 1 minute of interview compared to the best practice average of 5.15 mins per 1 minute of interview
Tape Library functions
Force Post description Grade No. of staff (FTE)
Total budget
(£000)
Beds Tape Librarian Scale 3 1
Cambs Generic Admin Team
Scale 2/3 2.5
Herts Tape Librarian A2 4
Total 7.5 173.47
Tape libraries - Service Provision
Criteria Description
Current
position
1 site in Beds (Luton)
1 site in Cambs (Peterborough)
3 sites in Herts (Hatfield, Stevenage and Watford)
Current
purpose The administration and management of suspect and witness
interviews and other types of digital media.
Summary of
best practice Cambs – a) co-location with Typing Services which means that
the admin processes for producing copy interviews are reduced; b) process for dealing with CCTV, which is managed as ‘property subject of crime’ within local policing; and c) archiving using Transearch
Beds – co –location with Typing Services
Herts – method of prioritising requests for copies of interviews
Summary of
gaps in
current
service
provision /
inefficiencies
Cambs – there is no access to suspect interviews out of hours
Beds – a) inconsistencies in the retention of CCTV; b) Management Of Police Information (MOPI) guidelines are not being followed; c) inconsistences in level of service provided; d) use a non- digital recording system
Herts – a) a significant amount of time is taken on admin; b) there is no access for investigators to tape library team spread sheets, which generates enquiries; and c) retention of material in line with MOPI guidelines
Policy and Performance
Details of the current staff grades and costs are provided in the table below. It should be noted that the cost for this function now includes the support provided to CJ by 2 Police Officers in Cambs. This cost was not reflected within the OBC.
Force Post description
Grade No. of staff (FTE)
Total budget (£000)
Beds Performance & Compliance Officer
SO1 0.81
Research & Policy Officer
Scale 6 0.78
Cambs Police officer Sergeant 0.78
Police officer (50%)
Pc 0.5
Herts Policy Manager
A5 1
Research Administrator
A3 1
Total 4.87 191.47
Policy and Performance – Service provision
Criteria Description
Current position
1 site in Beds (Bedford)
2 sites in Cambs (Cambridge and Peterborough)
1 site in Herts (WGC)
Current purpose
The management of approach and implementation of national and local CJS and policing initiatives; and analysis and provision of local and CJS related performance data
Summary of best practice
Cambs – a) the work undertaken in relation to file quality and the QA check that is in place; and b) input in relation to officer training for Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ).
Criteria Description
Beds – dedicated team members to provide CJ specific performance data.
Herts – a) dedicated team members to drive local and CJS changes; b) the provision of performance data for CJ managers, local policing and joint agency meetings. This allows for action to be taken promptly and appropriate challenges to be made in relation to CJ partner actions and performance.
Summary of gaps in current service provision / inefficiencies
Cambs – The support to implement local and national CJS initiatives is currently provided by police officers outside of CJ. This could be withdrawn leaving a significant risk that initiatives will not be implemented effectively.
Beds – There is no resilience to the current post holder.
Herts – The current manager has responsibility for a number of CJ teams with competing demands on time, which can risk effective delivery of CJS initiatives.
Digital Justice Team
Force Post description
Grade No. of staff (FTE)
Total budget (£000)
Beds N/A
Cambs N/A
Herts Virtual Court/Live Link Coordinator
A5 1
Virtual Court Detention Officer
Pc 1
Virtual Court Detention Officer
A3 2
Total 4 149
Digital Justice – Service provision
Criteria Description
Current
position Beds – there are no VCs or LL suites currently in place
Cambs – LL suites are in place on 7 sites and officers giving evidence by LL is becoming common practice. Plans to implement the first VC in March 2016
Herts - LL suites are in place on 4 sites and being utilised by police and civilian witnesses. There are 3 VC enabled custody suites currently used for remand cases with pilot areas for bailed cases (Foreign National Offenders/Domestic Abuse) due to be trialled in Autumn 2015
Summary of
best practice Cambs – The LL application process is led by CJS partners
Herts – Use of virtual courts has seen an average guilty plea of 67.7% for 14/15 in Herts, which is an increase of approx.17% on average against the guilty plea for ‘live cases’. Use of the virtual court is currently being expanded in charge and bail cases for the first hearings in domestic abuse cases (where a guilty plea is anticipated) and in cases involving potential flight risks; i.e. foreign national offenders and those with no fixed abode.
Summary of
gaps in
current
service
provision
Cambs – there is no service provision for VC currently
Beds – there is no service provision for VC and LL currently
Herts – the lack of engagement by CJS partners impacts on the effectiveness
Appendix F – Demand profile A review of the demand for ROTIs and transcripts across BCH was undertaken to inform the future staffing profile of the proposed TOM. The analysis reviewed the trends in demand and looked to extrapolate these trends to project the future demand for the proposed TOM. Data was available for ROTIs and transcripts for all three forces from September 2014 – June 2015 (a total of 10 months). A breakdown of monthly volumes for each force is provided below.
ROTIS/Summaries Full Transcript
September
CAMBS 110 90
BEDS 70 20
HERTS 254 22
October
CAMBS 128 64
BEDS 102 42
HERTS 192 51
November
CAMBS 95 52
BEDS 95 10
HERTS 209 28
December
CAMBS 142 48
BEDS 81 27
HERTS 204 28
January
CAMBS 140 59
BEDS 96 35
HERTS 204 26
February
CAMBS 116 72
BEDS 80 27
HERTS 188 13
March
CAMBS 145 55
BEDS 63 12
HERTS 208 16
April
CAMBS 109 62
BEDS 59 30
HERTS 225 26
May
CAMBS 109 35
BEDS 75 14
HERTS 166 23
June
CAMBS 116 49
BEDS 134 0
HERTS 221 27
The table below summarises the total demand for summaries and transcripts for each force.
Cambs Beds Herts Total
Summaries 985 566 1684 3235
Transcripts 502 176 210 888
Total 1487 742 1894 4123
The table below sets out the demand for BCH for combined ROTIs and summaries for the period September 2014 – June 2015.
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June Total
Cambs 200 192 147 190 199 188 200 171 144 165 1796
Beds 90 144 105 108 131 107 75 89 89 134 1072
Herts 276 243 237 232 230 201 224 251 189 248 2331
Total 566 579 489 530 560 496 499 511 422 547 5199
The trend identifies a gradual decline in ROTIs and transcripts over the period. The chart below shows this decrease in demand and extrapolates the demand over the following nine months (until implementation of TOM in April 2016).
In the proposed TOM, demand across all three forces will be dealt within a collaborated Typing Services function. As such, it reasonable to assess trends in demand across BCH as a whole. The table below sets out the projected ROTI and transcript demand from Sept 2014 – June 2015 and the projected trend in demand until implementation in April 2016. The current trend would suggest a decrease of around 20% from the average volumes from the assessed period (from an average of 519.9 per month to 415 per month).
Cambs Beds Herts Total
Average over Sept 2014 - June 2015 179.6 107.2 233.1 519.9
Projected volume after nine months 138 96 181 415 As this analysis is based on the assumption that trends will continue at the current rate, it was not deemed prudent to build the whole 20% reduction into the activity analysis. The design team have therefore used a reduction of 18% for the proposed TOM and recommend that this is reviewed during the Post Implementation Review when the impact of a number of initiatives are fully understood.
020406080
100120140160180200220240260280300
Sep
tem
ber
Oct
ob
er
No
vem
ber
Dec
em
ber
Jan
uar
y
Feb
ruar
y
Mar
ch
Ap
ril
May
Jun
e
Cambs Beds Herts
Linear (Cambs) Linear (Beds) Linear (Herts)
Appendix G – Project Objectives The specific CJ Project objectives are to deliver:
Cost savings of 20% over a 2 year period (this is not a constrained target);
Excellent victim and witness-centered services;
Efficient and effective common business processes that incorporate best practice;
Optimum configuration of resources;
Effective demand management;
Business processes that will have ATHENA as the common thread;
Processes that maximise the use of technology across BCH and across the wider CJS;
Increased online interaction for victims, witnesses and defendants where appropriate to do so;
Effective relationships with CJS partners, working together to implement change and new CJS initiatives, identifying and tackling any barriers to effective delivery.
Appendix H – Design Principles
Design Principle Detail
People and Culture
Outlining the important role team members will play in the delivery of a shared services model for Criminal Justice functions. Working to ensure that team members are adequately trained, are able to make best use of the new operating model, are supervised, managed and led effectively and continually working to improve the service provided
Statutory Obligations
Including (a) the need for savings to be delivered in a timely fashion; and (b) the degree to which an option meets the needs of victims and witnesses. The aim is to design a service that incorporates our obligations under the Victims’ Code and the Equality Act, placing victim and witness needs at the heart of Criminal Justice processes. This will involve engagement with the public across Beds, Cambs and Herts. Statutory obligations under PACE and the CPIA in relation to the retention of investigative and evidential material must also be met.
Service Delivery and Processes
Ensuring consistent service provision and business processes are introduced, which are aligned to the ATHENA model and cognisant of the wider strategy to transform the CJS
Partners Recognising the importance of building even stronger relationships with our CJS partners, to ensure that we continue to work effectively together to deliver change and new CJS initiatives
Technology Ensuring that the use of technology and IT solutions are maximised across the CJ functions within BCH and the wider CJS
Appendix I – CJS initiative landscape with expected timescales
Appendix J – Digital solutions across Criminal Justice Digital storage A new digital storage solution for BCH has been procured by ICT and will be in place by the end of 2015. The storage has been procured primarily to cater for the volume of Body Worn Video (BWV) footage. ICT have agreed that up to 10TB of storage will be made available to CJ to enable interviews to be uploaded and stored securely. This is a small percentage of the overall storage and there will be no additional cost to CJ. Interviewers will be able to upload their interviews to the server following a decision to prosecute. If this decision occurs at a future date e.g. where a defendant was initially placed on police bail, either the interviewer or the DAS staff will upload the interview to the server. Currently, the speed at which interviews could be uploaded would differ according to the physical location of the person uploading. Dunstable and all custody stations are among the stations considered “fast”. Those at more rural/smaller stations would take longer. However, an ICT solution will be in place by the middle of 2015 which will enable the same fast speed across BCH. It is predicated that generally the uploading of interviews will be achieved in only a few minutes per interview. Feedback from investigators in relation to the proposed process has been very positive. All staff viewed it as an excellent step forward and an improvement to the way we
do business. The Evidential Summarisers within the Digital Administration Team (DAS) will locate the interview on the server and complete the work from the digital version, eliminating the need for movement of hard copy discs and reducing the admin processes required. The new digital process will allow the option for Evidential Summarisers to work remotely and outside office hours, which would benefit short turnaround and/or urgent requests and in the longer term is a step forward towards the objectives of the digital agenda. Electronic Witness Statement (EWS) EWS is an application that will sit outside Athena but talk to both Athena and the BCH force networks. It works both online and offline and was developed for use on mobile devices by officers, so statements could be taken electronically rather than being handwritten. The advantages of EWS include legibility from the outset, and improved integrity as the app will record date, time (and potentially location) details of the statement. The implication for CJ is that there will be a significant reduction in the number of handwritten statements. EWS statements should not need to be typed at a later
date if required for use at Crown Court trial. This will reduce the demand on Typing Services. EWS is planned for inclusion within the 3rd edition of tuServ, due for implementation across BCH between October and December 2015. As an interim solution, officers are able to take statements on devices using Microsoft Word, these are then exported to their individual accounts using e-mail, and uploaded to the server when they next log in to their e-mail accounts. It is hoped that tuServ will streamline this interim process as the statement will be saved into Athena from the outset. The current situation in relation to mobile devices across BCH is:
Beds Cambs Herts
No. of
devices rolled
out
500 tablets
(personal issue
to frontline
officers)
300 laptops
(personal issue
to crime teams)
1200 – 1300
devices
(personal issue
to frontline and
crime teams –
also Specials
and PCSOs)
220 toughpads
(pool issue –
frontline and
neighbourhood)
680 laptops
(personal issue
– crime teams
and Inspectors)
No. of further
devices to be
rolled out
Intel are to be
scoped – frontline
deemed complete
Negligible – rollout
deemed complete
A further 330 by the
end of the year
The devices have been issued to frontline and neighbourhood officers and Detectives in crime units (including specialist teams.) Demand was analysed prior to mobile devices being issued, and the numbers provided are intended to ensure availability to devices whenever required. Those responsible for mobile data projects across BCH still believe this to be the case and there are no plans to increase the total number of devices issued due to lack of availability. Those working within Joint Protective Services (JPS) e.g. firearms, dogs, ANPR, are also being provided with devices but under separate conditions due to reduced demand. JPS figures have not been included above as these units are intended to have maximum availability whilst on duty and therefore would be the last called upon to take a statement. The introduction of new technology means a different way of working for officers, and there will be a need for cultural practices to adapt accordingly. It is unlikely that EWS will be used to its full potential immediately, and it will be a number of months before this is the case. Reasons for EWS not being fully utilised at the beginning include:
Lack of faith in the technology (mitigated by the interim solution)
Lack of faith in the devices (equipment, connection); this will be subject to ongoing monitoring e.g. Herts have received negative feedback regarding the keyboards so are in the process of ordering improved keyboards as replacements
Resistance to moving away from familiar practices (mitigated by the interim solution)
Lack of access to a device (although the Metis team believe this should only occur in exceptional circumstances as the demand has been catered for appropriately)
Nationally, a small number of forces are utilising mobile devices for electronic statements (either as EWS or their equivalent of the BCH interim solution.) Hampshire were the pilot force for EWS; they report to have seen a reduction in the demand for typing statements, and there is at least one electronic statement per Crown Court file, but they have been unable to provide exact figures around percentage reduction. In Norfolk/Suffolk, mobile devices are being rolled out but only gradually. Their digital shared drive has seen an increase in typed statements from officers and reduced demand for typing. They are also able to say that their typing pool has greatly reduced, but have also been unable to provide figures or data to quantify the reduction. Avon and Somerset implemented EWS in 2012. Their current structure is comparable with the proposed CJ TOM for Phase 1 functions. They have seen a 25% reduction in statement demand over the past 12 months, this is believed to be partly (not wholly) due to the implementation of EWS. Robust performance measures will need to be put in place to monitor implementation and ‘take up’ of the EWS. This will be considered further as part of the implementation phase of the proposed TOM.
Appendix K – Agile working considered in line with Phase 1 Categories of Agile Working
Plus One Fixed Desk Team Share Agile Plus Home Worker
1:1 1:1 8:10 6:10 0
Custody
Sergeant/
Front Office
staff
Technical
specialists
CID/SNT;
Human
Resources;
ICT
CID/SNT;
Human
Resources;
ICT
Project
Workers;
Finance;
HR
Plus One 1:1 person to desk ratio that is dependent on the environment, you cannot move the desk elsewhere otherwise you cannot do the job, Custody Sgt or enquiry officer Fixed desk 1:1 ratio but dependent on the desk or computer for either bespoke software or programs/furniture for reasonable adjustments Team share A reduction of at least 20% on the provision of desks, no personal allocated desks or pedestals, shared spaces with personal box lockers for staff, possible areas, CIB, HR, Finance 8:10 ratio Agile plus A greater reduction in desk to person ratio of 40 – 80% due to majority of team being out and about on duty or at meetings/other locations, areas such as SNT’s, CID etc 6:10 ratio Home working Agile implementation is not about encouraging or allowing staff to nominate home as a place of work, it is intended that home working will be occasional and for days to clear admin backlogs such as PDR’s, crime queues, PIP work or as now with senior managers or supervisors working from home on ad hoc occasions.
Beds Cambs Herts
Local matters Kempston has no touch down zone but does have hot desks with replicators
The current CJ space at Copse Court will be reviewed after the PSC/IMU/CJ (Phase 2) projects requirements have been worked out (2017)
Welwyn Garden City will be the first touchdown zone within Herts with the other sites to follow, there is no time frame for this yet
Digital Administration Services
Staff responsible for typing services are a specialist team and classed as “fixed desk” under the agile working strategy; they need to have certain software and dual screens
They cannot be Agile Plus because this setup would not be readily available on all machines across BCH
In the short-term, DAS staff responsible for the receipt and storage of discs would not be able to work agilely due to the need for co-location with discs
As DAS staff would fall into the fixed desk category of agile working, which covers "reasonable adjustment" under the Equality Act 2010
The current space in Cambs for CJ Typing Services will remain in place until 2017. There will be the option for DAS staff to work remotely at that location on the understanding that this is not intended to be a permanent measure and will be reviewed within the FBC for Phase 2
Policy & Performance
Kempston (Halsey Road) is due to close in 2017 (the Research & Policy post is currently based there, although vacant.) The Performance & Compliance post is currently based at Greyfriars, Bedford
Touchdown zones would need to be used as there is no specific allocated area for Policy & Performance roles. No extra desks will be added. A decision would need to be made regarding whether staff would have laptops
The two existing Policy & Performance roles are currently based at Welwyn Garden City
Digital Justice Team
DJT staff responsible for virtual court duties would be based at a custody suites. The DJT manager role is expected to be agile and will need a laptop. There are Wi-Fi issues in all custody blocks (but desktop areas in most). There is Wi-Fi and replicators at most custody suites
Other Agile working requires a home force, and is role-specific, not person-specific. In time, all role profiles will be specific as to any agile working requirements
Any staff members expected to employ agile working must have the opportunity to work from a desktop as it is not recommended to use a laptop constantly (due to Health and Safety implications e.g. bad back, RSI, etc.)
BCH are looking into home working but there are financial implications for tax, equipment, utility etc. However this does not stop people from working from home on an ad hoc basis
A guidance (not policy) on Agile Working for BCH is due at JCOB on 13th October 2015 - there will be force-specific areas for consideration
Appendix L - Current force performance frameworks for case outcomes
BEDS
CAMBS HERTS
Magistrates Jan-Mar Apr-Jun
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jan-Mar Apr-Jun
% of guilty plea at first hearing > 72.5% 68.83% 68.5% 71.93% 72.4% 71.10% 73.6
Conviction Rate 80.47% 81.5% 84.6% 85.9% 83.63% 81.8%
Effective Trial rate > 55% 42.7% 39.8% 40.02% 47.9% 49.73% 44.6%
Ineffective trial rate < 17.5% 16.4% 18.8% 17.49% 13.0% 22.37% 19.3%
Cracked trial rate 40.90% 41.4% 42.49% 39.1% 27.93% 36.1%
% of failed cases due to victim & witness reasons < 25% 33.80% 36.8%
26.77% 28.3% 31.07% 29.2%
Crown Court
Conviction Rate > 82.5% 77.13% 82.3% 84.70% 82.1% 78.07% 83.1%
% of failed cases due to victim & witness reasons < 25% 21.80% 17.3%
21.03% 30.5% 23.37% 21.8%
% Early disposal rate (EGP) > 41% 32.83% 36.2% 26.10% 22.9% 37.33% 35.7%
% of cracked trials 20.63% 35.1% 38.42% 31.85% 24.43% 25.8%
% Effective trial rate > 55% 58.17% 47.4% 51.40% 61.5% 54.05% 42.4%
% ineffective trial rate < 15% 21.20% 17.5% 10.72% 6.8% 21.52% 31.8%
The figures are taken from the performance report prepared for the Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs)
Appendix M – Assurance assessments
All assumptions made during the design of the TOM for phase 1 within the OBC have been re-assessed against the following;
1. Recent HMIC reports and the objectives of national CJS initiatives
2. The implementation of the Electronic Witness Statement locally and nationally
3. Factors which may impact on the agreed staffing profile for the TOM i.e.
the BCH collaboration productivity measure;
agreed Athena business processes;
the demand profile for phase 1 functions to include impact of the recent implementation of CJS initiatives i.e. Transforming Summary Justice
An evaluation of the roles and responsibilities of each of the team members
Feedback from stakeholders specifically regarding the services provided to include the provision of interview summaries rather than interview transcripts.
4. Risks associated with implementation i.e. loss of skilled and experienced staff; and high implementation costs
5. The weightings used against each of TOM options outlined within the OBC
6. Other models operating in Forces nationally
7. Feedback from stakeholder engagement sessions
1. Recent HMIC reports and National CJS initiatives
The general expectation by CJS partners is that a summary of the interview will be provided covering the salient points and key evidential matters to be used during the trial.
A full transcript (verbatim record) can be requested by CPS or the Judge if required.
In July 2013 by HMIC and HMCPSI jointly reported on “Getting Cases Ready for Court”, which addressed the issue of case file quality. The emphasis was on effective file preparation which ensures only necessary information and documentation is included. In respect of interviews, the report criticised the use of lengthy transcripts in favour of summarised interviews.
This joint HMIC report provided the basis for the national CJS initiatives such as Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ) in the Magistrates Court and Better Case Management (BCM) in the Crown Court. Each has good file quality and case management at as a key principle.
Feedback from HMCTS leads has suggested that transcripts for Magistrates trials would generally be acceptable but summaries of interview will be required for the majority of Crown Court trials. Based on the current proportion of work for Magistrates trials against Crown Court trials, this would equate to transcripts of interviews being prepared in a maximum of 15% of cases.
2. Implementation of the Electronic Witness Statement (EWS)
Currently all statements required for Crown Court trial must be in typed format for ease of use of the Judiciary and advocates.
The Electronic Witness Statement (EWS) is in development within tuServ and will enable statements to be taken electronically on mobile devices and stored automatically within Athena.
Implementation across BCH is expected by the end of 2015. The EWS will remove the need to type handwritten statements in the vast majority of cases.
Nationally the forces who have implemented EWS have seen a reduction in their typing demand, but have been unable to quantify this reduction precisely.
It is clear from feedback received, that it may be unrealistic to expect a significant level of reduction over a short period of time.
3. Staffing Profile
The following measures have been reassessed to ensure the staffing profile within the suggested TOM is accurate;
The demand profile - to take into account;
I. any decrease in demand for typing services;
II. the potential impact of Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ);
III. the newly assessed proportion of summaries and transcripts of suspect interviews in typing services
IV. the removal of some services from tape library functions
The activity analysis for typing services - to ensure that Athena tasks have been calculated accurately following recent work-shops to determine and agree the high level Athena business processes; and that best practice has been incorporated throughout.
The productivity measure of 1366 hours per year recently agreed for BCH collaboration projects was applied to the activity analysis and staffing profile for typing services (the only team in phase 1 with more than 4 team members). This replaces the productivity measure used in the OBC calculations of 1750 hours per year. This is a reduction of 22% in the productive hours.
The evaluation of the roles and responsibilities of all roles within the TOM undertaken by an independent panel. A table outlining the changes made to the current grades can be found below.
Feedback from stakeholders regarding the service to be provided, i.e. Senior Court managers regarding the provision of transcripts rather than summaries in order to mitigate further costs for all CJ agencies later in the Justice process.
The table below outlines the changes made to the grading of staff within the proposed TOM for Phase 1 functions;
Current Role Current Grade New Role New Grade Change
Virtual Court Co-ordinater (Herts)
A4 (Herts) Digital Justice Manager
Beds PO2 Cambs SO2 Herts A5
New role (partially covered by Virtual Court Co-ordinator A4 equivalent)
Secretariat Team leader (Beds) Typing Unit team leader (Herts)
Scale 5 (Beds) A4 (Herts)
Digital Administration Services Team Leader
Beds Scale SO1/2 Cambs Scale 6 Herts A4
Beds increase in Grade to Scale SO1/2 equivalent
Cambs -no current equivalent position
Herts –no change
Secretariat Assistant (Beds) Evidential Audio Transcribers (Cambs) Tape Summarisers (Herts)
Scale 3 (Beds) last reviewed in 2011 Scale 3 (Cambs) last reviewed in 2005 A3 (Herts) last review date u/k
Evidential Summariser (Supervisory)
Beds Scale 5 Cambs Scale 5 Herts A3
Beds – no current equivalent role
Cambs - no current equivalent role
Herts –no change
Secretariat Assistant (Beds) Evidential Audio Transcribers (Cambs) Tape Summarisers (Herts) Word Processing Operators
Scale 3 (Beds) Scale 3 (Cambs) A3(Herts) A2 (Herts)
Evidential Summariser (Non-Supervisory)
Herts A3 Beds Scale 4 Cambs Scale 4
Beds – Increase in equiv. of (1) grade
Cambs - Increase in equiv. of (1) grade
Herts –no change for current summarisers, increase in1 grade for Word Processing Operators
Tape Librarian (Beds and Herts) Generic Admin (Cambs)
Scale 3 (Beds) Scale 2/3 (Cambs) A2 (Herts)
Digital Administrator
Beds Scale 3 Cambs Scale 3 Herts A2
Beds – no change
Cambs – no change
Herts –no change
4. Risks associated with implementation
The following risks have been identified with long travelling distances from current locations to a centralised site for Digital Administration Services in Dunstable;
Loss of skilled and experienced staff specifically those who summarise suspect interviews for trial
High implementation costs associated with relocation expenses in the region of £147K over 3 years for Cambs
5. The weightings used against each of TOM options outlined within the OBC
During the OBC phase, a weighted assessment for each of the TOM options was carried out.
This assessment has been reviewed for the proposed TOM as part of the FBC phase to ensure that any changes to the TOM do not adversely affect the overall assessment of the model.
The revised weighted for both the OBC and FBC are provided in the table below:
Phase
Service
Delivery
(out of 10)
Weighting
(50%)
Cost
(out of 10)
Weighting
(30%)
Process
Alignment
(out of 10)
Weighting
(20%)
Total
Weighted
Mark
OBC 8 4 8 2.4 5 1 7.4
FBC 9 4.5 7 2.1 5 1 7.6
The weighted score increases slightly from the OBC due to greater resilience from
CJ and Policy Manager
A5 (Herts) Policy & Performance Manager (CJ)
Beds PO1 Cambs SO2 Herts A5
Beds – no current equivalent position
Cambs -no current equivalent position
Herts –no change
Performance and Compliance Officer (Beds) Policy Research Officer (Beds) CJ Research Administrator (Herts)
Scale 6/ SO1 (Beds) Pc/Sgt (Cambs) A3 (Herts)
Performance and Policy Officer
Beds Scale 5 Cambs Scale 5 Herts A3
Beds – potential reduction in 1 or 2 grades
Cambs –currently undertaken by police officers
Herts –no change
increased staff numbers. As such, the updated TOM remains the recommended solution.
6. Other models operating in Forces nationally
Examination of the CJ operating models in the following forces was undertaken, specifically for the provision of Typing services and tape library functions:
Norfolk and Suffolk (Athena Forces and same CPS region as Cambs);
Thames Valley (in the same CPS region as Beds and Herts); and
Avon and Somerset (similar staffing structure to the TOM for Typing Services, and similar demand to BCH) have been considered,
Interpretation of their staffing levels and structure against their demand, considered alongside their individual characteristics, has shown a favourable comparison to that of the TOM.
Best practice has been incorporated into the TOM, specifically in relation to the co-location of typing services and tape library functions, providing resilience and rationalisation of line management.
7. Feedback from stakeholder engagement sessions
There have been a number of activities undertaken to ensure engagement with relevant stakeholders.
The table of outlining the stakeholder engagement can be found at Appendix N
Feedback from the engagement sessions can be distilled into the following main points, and have been considered by the CJ Project Team in the design of the TOM and covered in further detail within this FBC:
o The apportionment of savings (included in the Financial case);
o The justification for providing the level of service proposed (details are included in the summary of services to be provided)
o The impact of new CJS initiatives (included in the Strategic case).
o Identification of the benefits of a collaborated function (included within the Economic case)
o The roadmap to a Target Operating Model
o Guidance received from CJ partners in relation to preparation of transcripts for ABE interviews
Appendix N – Stakeholder Engagement
Internal and External
Crown Prosecution Service
Joint Agency Groups/Meetings
Design Principles Workshop
CPS (BCH) were provided within an introduction and update on the initial steps taken i.e. Scoping work currently taken by CJ Teams across BCH
CPS leads provided an input into the drafting of the design principles
Meeting (Cambs)regarding the collaboration of the LCJB Delivery Groups
Seminar planned in November 2015 to discuss new initiatives; the digital agenda and potential impact on collaboration
Regular PTPM meetings across BCH. The strategic lead (JS) for collaboration is the Chair of the joint B&H PTPM meeting
Specific Athena engagement meetings planned to commence 18/09/15
HMCTS (Court Service) Meeting
HMCTS have been provided within an introduction and update on the initial steps taken i.e. Scoping work currently taken by CJ Teams across BCH
HMCTS leads provided an input into the drafting of the design principles
Meetings have taken place regarding potential court clusters in the future (i.e. legal and admin responsibilities) and
linked to the use of extended use of Virtual Courts
Seminar planned in November to discuss new initiatives; the digital agenda and potential impact on collaboration
Email (August 2015) seeking views on the provision of the acceptable volume of suspect interviews prepared as transcripts rather than summaries
Meeting on 20/08 regarding digital justice processes (VC for bailed cases)
Meeting to discuss commitment regarding digital solutions – VC and Live link solutions
Presentation regarding the structure of the new delivery team supporting the LCJBs and the proposal to rationalise the LCJB sub group structure
Other CJS partners i.e. Probation Service
Local Criminal Justice Boards
Joint Agency Groups/Meetings
Other CJS partners have been provided with an introduction and update on initial steps i.e. scoping work currently undertaken by CJ teams across BCH
Presentation at the LCJBs outlining the principles of collaboration; the new LCJB support team and the proposal to rationalise the LCJB Sub group meeting structure; aligning to key areas of CJ business to all 3 Boards
BeNCH seminar attended with input provided at workshops
Athena Project Regional Case User Group Meetings
CJ/Custody Project Board
Meetings/Liaision with the Athena Implementation Team
Provided with an introduction but no further specific updates.
Continuous discussions around Athena implications to CJ business areas and implementation
Joint workshops with CJ Project Team and Athena Implementation Team to determine high level Athena Business Processes
Action plan developed regarding the implementation of Athena within CJ functions
Surrounding Force Areas
Eastern and South Eastern Region CJ meetings
Introduction and update provided on initial steps i.e. scoping work currently being undertaken by CJ teams across BCH
impact of Athena of discussed; and rationalisation of Delivery teams under the LCJB;
Liaison regarding best practise for typing services and witness care
OPCCs Engagement meetings
Strategic alliance
Meetings with individual OPPCs
Ops Support Programme Board
Engagement event in relation to the relationship of Metis (Cambs) to CJ collaboration
OBC socialisation and engagement events
Meeting with all 3 OPPCs to discuss the future of pre and post charge Witness care and the vital links
Meeting (Cambs) to discuss CJS initiatives and the potential impact on CJ functions
Liaison specifically in relation to the new delivery team supporting the LCJBs and the potential rationalisation of the LCJB sub-groups
Email feedback and liaison regarding the OBC and Target Operating Model
Regular attendance and updates provided at the Ops Support Programme Board
Chief Finance Officers JCOB
Financial challenge with Ops Support CFO
Regular meetings in place
CJ leads BCH Engagement sessions
Individual meetings
OBC socialisation
Meetings specifically regarding the relationships between pre and post charge Witness care
Meetings regarding SMT and proposed TOM (Phase 1 and 2)
Engagement event in relation to the proposed SMT and OBC
Various meetings and workshops regarding Individual areas of business and specifically impact of Athena
CJ and Custody Project Board
Monthly meetings Attendance to include the following; o CJ leads o Estates o Staff
representatives o HR o Finance o Benefits team
o Athena Implementation Team
Staff Associations Engagement session
Project Board
Meetings
Emails
Engagement session to discuss OBC and TOM for phase 1 and SMT
Attendance at Project Board meetings
Liaision following individual queries regarding specific areas of business i.e. tape library functions and witness care
Members of BCH Diverse Communities
Public Engagement Event Objectives were to seek views on current service provision to enable us to identify areas of improvement for the future. Presentation/forum discussion on current victim and witness service delivery
Action plan developed as a result and feedback provided to local CJ leads for action
Investigators across BCH
Site visits to uniform and crime team investigators in each force
Objective was to seek feedback on the proposed digital storage solution and the uploading process involved
Positive feedback received, suggestions made and no obstacles presented
Property Store Leads in Beds and Herts
Meetings
To discuss and plan the proposed new process for the management of CCTV in Beds and Herts
Estates leads Meetings
To discuss estate requirements of the proposed TOM for Phase1 and 2 functions
Local Change leads Meetings
Meetings with all 3 change leads to discuss
impact of CJ on local change
Meetings regarding Metis and tuServe
Liaision regarding potential impact of local change and collaboration on staff consultation periods
Appendix O – Assumptions made during the design of the TOM As a result of the assurance assessments undertaken a number of the assumptions made in the OBC have been revised. The table below outlines the assumptions made in the OBC against the revised assumptions made within this FBC and the impact on the TOM.
Business Area
Assumption made in OBC Revised Assumption in FBC Impact on TOM
Typing Services
That the requirement to type witness statements for court proceedings will be reduced by 80% at go live (following the introduction of the EWS Jan 2016)
That the requirement to type witness statements will be reduced by 90% by October 2016. In the meantime, this service will be commissioned from an external provider.
It is expected that this will cost around £5k over the first six months post-implementation
That the service to provide transcripts of defendant interviews (approx. 20%) will be commissioned at a cost that is less than a service provided by an in-house BCH team
That the proportion of transcripts of defendant interviews will decrease to 15% of the workload for less serious/complex cases and will be commissioned from and external provider at a cost less than the service currently provided.
Reduction in the non-pay costs of approx. £1K
That 12 FTE evidential summarisers will be required to deliver the service to summarise interviews
That 14 FTE will be required to deliver this service (based on productivity measures and additional services i.e. the requirement for more summaries than transcripts)
The staffing profile for Evidential Summarisers will increase from 12 FTE to 14 FTE
That the service to summarise defendant interviews will remain ‘in-house’ at a cost less than any provision of commissioned services
Due to the increase in the FTE for the TOM (+2), the provision of this service ‘in house’ is no longer the least expensive option. However, it is proposed that the service continues to be delivered in house for the following reasons; 1. To meet the service
demand - the average turnaround time for service from an external provider is 5 working days. This does not meet the demand for urgent requests and Judge’s Orders for summaries/transcripts and other evidential
No change required
Business Area
Assumption made in OBC Revised Assumption in FBC Impact on TOM
material (i.e. 999 calls) that are required in less than 5 days. Failure to deliver this service will result in an increase in failed cases for serious offences.
2. To avoid the restriction of lengthy contractual obligations to include TUPE, which could limit any further changes following the PIR and any further decrease in demand.
That there will be an increase in the number of transcripts/summaries required for pre-charge decisions, BWV, ABE interviews of witnesses and 999 calls
There is unlikely to be a significant increase in the numbers of transcripts/summaries for pre-charge decisions, BWV, ABE interviews and 999 calls. Robust measures will be introduced to manage this process with summaries/transcripts provided by exception only
No change required
That all staff would be located at a centralised site
The opportunity to work remotely could be applied to Cambs and Herts (to be reviewed in 6 months) to mitigate the risk of loss of experienced staff and to reduce implementation costs
No change required
Tape Library functions
That CCTV and BWV will be managed locally outside of the TL function in Herts and Beds
As OBC No change required
That the service will continue to include the administration required in the retention and copy of all recorded interviews
That service will continue to include the administration required in the retention of all suspect interviews That service will cease in relation to witness interviews (ABE) for Beds and Cambs within 6 months of implementation
No change required Improved compliance with statutory obligations
That the digital evidence store will not be available until at least 2017
As OBC No change required
Business Area
Assumption made in OBC Revised Assumption in FBC Impact on TOM
That the best data regarding the ‘as is’ activity analysis and cost has come from team members and finance
As OBC No change required
That there will be no additional significant costs for courier service with the current service utilised
As OBC No change required
That there may be additional limited costs for new storage at one site
That there will be limited costs of new storage (capital costs) in the region of £12K
Will be reflected in the implementation costs outlined in the Financial Case
That current voluntary staff contributions (Beds and Herts) will cease
As OBC No change required
That the supervisor function will be shared within the DAS team
As OBC No change required
Policy and Performance
That the same service will be provided across the tri-force alliance
As OBC No change required
That the agreed ‘categories’ for agile working have been applied
As OBC No change required
Digital Justice (Phase 1)
That implementation will span phase 1 and 2
As OBC No change required
In phase 1 Live links – to be expanded for use of civilian witnesses (Cambs and Herts)
As OBC No change required
Virtual court in Herts will be expanded to be used for charge and bailed first hearing offences for FNOs; domestic abuse; driving with excess alcohol
As OBC No change required
Appendix P - Breakdown of staff by functional area and grade
Current budget Final TOM Total savings
Functional Area Level FTE £'000 FTE £'000 FTE £'000
Typing Services
Cambs SC4 4.00
Staff 11.83 286.80
Cambs SC3 5.00
Beds SC3 4.62
Beds SC4 2.00
Beds SC5 1.00
Herts A2 5.08
Herts A3 10.13 7.00
Herts A4 1.00
Unallocated SC5 1.00
Unallocated A4 1.00
Total 26.83 713.58 15.00 426.78
Tape Library
Cambs SC2/3 2.50 1.00
Staff 3.50 81.68
Beds SC3 1.00 1.00
Herts A2 4.00 2.00
Total 7.50 173.47 4.00 91.79
Policy & Performance
Cambs Sgt 0.78
Staff 1.87 88.47
Cambs Constable 0.50
Beds SC6 0.78
Beds SO1 0.81
Herts A5 1.00
Herts A3 1.00
Unallocated A3 2.00
Unallocated A5 1.00
Total 4.87 3.00 103.00
Digital Justice
Herts A5 1.00 1.00
Staff 0.00 0.00 Herts A3 2.00 2.00
Herts Constable 1.00 1.00
Total 4.00 149.44 4.00 149.44
Total 43.20 1,227.96 26.00 771.01 Total 17.20 456.95
Appendix Q – Services which will no longer be delivered within CJ Phase 1 functions
Description Impact of change on service provided
No printing of forms/e-mail requests Time saving - All information should be contained within Athena
No sending of material to the CPS directly
Time saving and improved case submission to CPS - The ‘requester’ will take responsibility for sending to CPS to ensure that all material is sent in one submission as required by CJS initiatives
Typing of ABE will be by exception only
Time saving - Typing of ABE interviews (post charge) is the responsibility of CPS and therefore will only be undertaken in i.e. exceptional circumstances
Typing required for pre-charge decision will be by exception only
Time saving and improvement to initial case file quality - Typing pre-charge is often required where the initial summary prepared by the interviewer is inadequate. Work will be done during implementation to improve the quality of first submission interviews and robust management will be in place to ensure the following:
If a further summary or transcript is required due to inadequacy, that the interviewer prepares and re-submits;
That CPS are appropriately challenged regarding the requirement of a full transcript for pre-charge decision cases.
Checking processes i.e. to ensure information provided by investigators is adequate and correct
Up skilling required - If this service is reduced (i.e. checking processes) then this must not be done in isolation and without further and continued investment in skills and knowledge of officers and staff in the preparation of case files.
The management and retention of CCTV (Beds and Herts)
Process improvement - This process will now be managed as part of property management in local policing in Beds and Herts.
The main benefits are:
No additional time taken by officers in the process;
Access and management via the Property Management System (PMS) rather than individual spread sheets;
More robust compliance with MOPI guidelines
The management and retention of Body Worn Video (BWV)
Time saving and process improvement – A new digital process is being introduced for the management of BWV across BCH by end 2015
The management of ABE interviews after a period of 6 months (for Beds and Cambs)
Compliance with MOPI guidelines and recent guidance issued following the Goddard Enquiry – work to align this process will take place during and after implementation in Beds and Cambs
The copying of CCTV Process improvement and improved file quality - CCTV copying will be done by Video Evidence Units to ensure that all copies are viewable on Court equipment and a consistent approach is taken across BCH
The provision of defendant antecedents for sentencing purposes (for Cambs)
Streamlining of processes and improved initial case file quality – it is recommended that antecedents should be completed by the investigators as part of the initial file build process (currently done in Beds and Herts)
Appendix R – Breakdown of implementation plan by workstream See embedded document below
CJ Implementation
Plan.pptx
Appendix S – Benefits Summary Table See embedded document below
150727 CJ FBC
Business Benefits table.xlsx
Appendix T – Baseline Budget
Current budget
Functional Area Level FTE £'000
Typing Services
Cambs SC3 5.00
Beds SC3 4.62
Beds SC5 1.00
Herts A2 5.08
Herts A3 10.13
Herts A4 1.00
Total 26.83 713.58
Tape Library
Cambs SC2/3 2.50
Beds SC3 1.00
Herts A2 4.00
Total 7.50 173.47
Policy & Performance
Cambs Sgt 0.78
Cambs Constable 0.50
Beds SC6 0.78
Beds SO1 0.81
Herts A5 1.00
Herts A3 1.00
Total 4.87 191.47
Digital Justice
Herts A5 1.00
Herts A3 2.00
Herts Constable 1.00
Total 4.00 149.44
Total Staff 43.20 1,227.96
Non-Staff 62.00
Total Staff and Non-Staff 1,289.96
Appendix T – Equality Impact Assessment See embedded document below
Equality Impact
Analysis - CJ v 0 2 01 09 2015.doc
