An Early Assessment of Collocated Criminal Justice Units

A report by the Glidewell Working Group

FOREWORD

This review was commissioned by the Criminal Justice Steering Group to examine a number of sites where early collocation between the police and CPS had been achieved. This has had to be a fast moving piece of research and is intended to act as a helpful source of information for those Forces and CPS areas which have, or will shortly be moving towards, collocated criminal justice units (CJU).

In the six sites visited (all of which were different and had faced separate problems) a collocated CJU had been created. All were able to quickly demonstrate the advantages of achieving, or seeking to achieve, the nine key objectives of a Glidewell collocated CJU This had been achieved, to some extent, in most of the six sites. While the report is able to identify a series of gains that have been made, there is an obvious limitation in that the visits were conducted shortly after the new administrative arrangements had been put in place. It has therefore not been possible to evaluate these schemes with quantifiable savings.

Further visits and assessments when the areas are more established will be required to ascertain the savings, and any increases in efficiency/quality. It is significant that the areas visited had selected specific pilot sites within their geographical responsibility where, in their opinion, the move to collocation was the easiest to achieve.

We hope that this report will enable the reader to review arrangements, facilitate the solution for local problems and assist in the progress towards the Model for Joint Administration approved and supported by the Home Secretary, Attorney General and Lord Chancellor.

This "early assessment" report complements the joint seminars which will be held at Bramshill Police College on 28 February and Liverpool Police Headquarters on 8 March.

Any member of the Police or CPS staff who require any assistance with their plans should contact any member of the CJU Working Group (see Annex 9\10). We fully commend this informative and, hopefully, helpful document to both our organisations.

Sir David Phillips, Chief Constable of Kent.

Peter Boeuf, Chief Crown Prosecutor,

Joint Chairs of the CJUSteering Group

January, 2001

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Police and CPS staff at all levels in the Areas visited for their openness and cooperation throughout. We were conscious that we were visiting at a difficult time for many Areas and Forces and we are grateful for all the assistance we received, without which this report could not have been written.

The CJU Working Group January 2001

Summary

Background

1. Sir Iain Glidewell was commissioned by the Government in 1997 to review The Crown Prosecution Service. His report was published in 1998 and set out 75 recommendations. The majority dealt with Crown Prosecution Service internal activities, but inevitably, there were also implications for the Police.

2. In essence, Glidewell proposed a move to a single administrative unit, collocating Police and CPS staff, in order to maximise efficiency and eliminate duplications within the prosecution process.

3. Between September and November 1999, Chief Constables and Chief Crown Prosecutors (CCPs) were invited to draw up outline plans to implement Criminal Justice Units (CJUs) locally in accordance with nine key objectives determined by the CJU Steering Group. The nine key objectives are;

(i) Shorter lines of communication between the Police and CPS;

(ii) Minimised transport of files between Police and CPS;

(iii) Cost savings by reduction of duplication including photocopying, archiving and the collection of performance and management information;

(iv) A single file system;

(v) Improved file quality and timeliness for both organisations;

(vi) Improved witness warning, witness care and victim support;

(vii) More effective deployment of staff;

(viii) Individuals within each organisation locally empowered to make day-to-day decisions;

(ix) Clearly defined single-focus location for the courts and other agencies;

4. Outline plans were received from all Areas by the end of November 1999 and a migration plan was submitted to and approved by ministers in March 2000. Final plans for the implementation of a flexible local model for joint administration are now in the process of being drawn up within the 42 Police Force and CPS Areas.

5. This study, designed as a preliminary assessment of 6 early "beacon" CJU sites, was commissioned by the CJU Steering Group and undertaken during September and October 2000 by the CJU Working Group.

Emerging findings

6. Without exception, all sites visited are pleased with the progress and improvements that have been made through implementing their models for joint administration. No one interviewed at any level in any of the joint working Areas expressed a desire to return to 'old' separate working practices.

Service Levels Agreements and Protocols

7. Service level agreements and protocols have been established to avoid confusion between agencies, allowing for continuing amendments to systems and procedures as they jointly define best practice in day-to-day contact.

Too soon for meaningful costing

8. As this is an early assessment, quantifiable performance improvements or cost savings have not yet been measured, but each Area is confident that they can be attained and is actively seeking them.

Senior Officer support

9. Each of the sites visited had the full and unequivical support of Chief Constables and Chief Crown Prosecutors, usually expressed through direct involvement within the planning process and provision of the appropriate funding.

Immediate availability of 'suitable' accommodation

10. The beacon sites have demonstrated what can be done within a short timescale and have piloted joint-working practices where there has been immediate availability of suitable or semi-suitable accomodation, or where some form of joint-working was already in place.

Pre-joint working analysis

11. At most sites, the Police and CPS have undertaken pre-joint working analysis to determine performance prior to introducing new systems, enabling accurate assessment of post-joint working performance levels.

Fear of change managed

12. At each site visited, both agencies recognised the entirely natural fear of change that Glidewell procedures can engender and have managed the transitional period with sensitivity and good humour.

Regular meetings

13. Regular cross-agency meetings are being held to monitor progress and address matters of concern as they arise. Agreed common aims and objectives have been drafted and a common culture is developing.

Local solutions for local challenges

4. While paying regard to national concerns, local solutions to local problems are being developed. Financial arrangements are being approached on a partnership basis, sufficiently flexible to allow for innovation.

Centralisation to avoid fragmentation

15. At each site, the Police had undertaken some rationalisation of their existing CJU structure and were planning to rollout further centralised CJUs across their force areas which assisted CPS to avoid fragmentation of limited resources. Existing CJUs serviced one or more magistrates' courts and normally at least one Police division or district. Most CJU Areas had multiple charging centres servicing the CJU, which was not considered problematic, although it was believed that magistrates' courts might have difficulties if serviced by more than one CJU.

Inbalance of available resources

16. There is an imbalance between the Police and The CPS at a local level in the availability of additional resources to fund accommodation changes. At those sites visited, pragmatic arrangements have been developed to enable new structures to be established, following a broad principle of costs lying where they fall. Where CPS staff have been accommodated within Police premises, the bulk of the associated costs have been absorbed by the Police, with the prospect of compensating savings flowing from a single file system, and closer access to lawyers and caseworkers reducing communication costs.

17. The CPS has received £5 million of additional funding from Round 2 of the Capital Modernisation Fund to assist in the capital costs of establishing Criminal Justice Units and Trial Units. All CPS Areas are bidding against this fund to assist in the establishment of these units in both Police and CPS premises.

Joint training

18. At all sites there has been some form of joint training on mutual processes. Managers have ensured that combined staff are sufficiently trained in the short-term to enable them to carry out the combined functionality of the unit.

Independence

19. The operational independence of each agency has been recognised and respected. Staff are conscious that public perceptions of independence within the prosecution process need to be assured.

Emerging benefits

20. All sites report that the collocation of Police and CPS prosecution staff is eliminating unnecessary work through improved communications. Enquiries by CPS and the Police which used to take weeks to clear can now be resolved satisfactorily in minutes. Speedier notification of proposed discontinuance, for example, has reduced the wasted effort on upgrading files unnecessarily.

Face-to-face communication

21. Improved dialogue between CPS and enquiry officers has cut down duplicate photocopying, reduced administrative work and improved timeliness. Costs have reduced for the Police and CPS through joint working but it is too soon to quantify annual cost savings.

Single point of contact

22. The public, particularly victims and witnesses, are the major beneficiaries of collocation through improved communications during the prosecution process and speedier notification of results. CJUs have quickly established themselves as the single point of contact for members of the public on the prosecution of magistrates' court cases.

Greater understanding between agencies

23. There is improved understanding between organisations of their respective roles and problems leading to to greatly improved working relationships, replacing the 'them and us' culture that used to exist in some Areas.

Improved file quality and timeliness

24. Closer working relationships between the Police and CPS lawyers, in particular, has led to earlier legal advice in more cases. This has led to improvements in file quality and reduction in wasted effort for both agencies.

Clearer file endorsement

25. In those sites where Police administrative staff support the magistrates' court prosecution process, the quality of CPS file endorsements have become clearer and more intelligible.

The single file

26. Closer working between agencies is assisting development of a shared single file between the Police and CPS, which will produce considerable cost savings by reduction of copying, tracking and archiving of duplicate files for both organisations, particularly the Police.

Local managers empowered

27. Managers in both agencies are using the opportunities of improved joint management approaches to clearly identify efficiency wins. Chief Constables and CCPs have empowered local managers to take key decision which lead to more effective day-to-day on-site management for both agencies.

Early lessons

28. The working group was asked to determine any rubbing-points or lessons learnt during implementation of joint working. Where early difficulties were identified, these had been in ensuring that:

• planning involved key decision makers;
• CJU staffing levels were appropriate; · boundaries of mutual responsibility were agreed and;
• the quality of CPS file endorsements was improved to facilitate greater police involvement in the administrative process of magistrates' court prosecutions.
• Developing it in a common administration

29. Developing IT support in collocated CJUs has not been without problems whilst both CPS and the police await the provision of modern strategic systems. The early sites have adopted a pragmatic approach, often by the Police providing CPS with access to their tracking systems, while CPS systems have been maintained for providing performance indicators.

Tolerance, flexibility and goodwill

30. Managers at all sites projected positive attitudes and encouragement during the transition. Tolerance, goodwill and flexibility by all concerned is an absolute prerequisite. This requires constructive approaches by Police and CPS staff and management at all levels.

Good practice

31. The team were also asked to identify any emerging good practice. Examples included;

• the multi-skilling of administrative staff providing flexibility for staff deployments;
• joint quality reviews of the joined-up process;
• new methods of aphabetical filing in the CJU to reduce search and tracking difficulties and;
• change-management newsletters to keep staff informed.

Conclusion

32 The early assessment has confirmed that a collocated Model for Joint Administration (MJA) has the potential to maximise the benefits obtainable from the 9 Glidewell objectives. Whilst the MJA is flexible and allows for a range of options dependent on local circumstances, the assessment suggests that maximum benefits can be secured from a collocated solution where:

• the police are willing to assume some or all responsibility for the administration for magistrates' court casework, allowing the freeing up of CPS resources to focus on more serious casework, provide better court coverage, and improve the service for victims and witnesses;
• accommodation suitable for collocation can be found within existing police and CPS estate, or can be secured with the assistance of additional resources from the Capital Modernisation Fund or similar initiatives. Flexibility and creativity of approach towards the acquisition and use of new or existing accommodation is required;
• the actual and perceived independence of both agencies is supported by the creation and management of robust, viable and sustainable CJUs;
• successful collocation is dependent on the geography of the Area, taking into account the location and number of police stations and courts to be served, and the number of personnel from both organisations that can be assigned to each unit.

If the above are not immediately achievable, Chief Crown Prosecutors and Chief Constables will wish to develop the best available interim solution which secures each of the 9 Glidewell objectives.

Chapter 1

Early Assessment of Collocated Criminal Justice Units

1.1 Purpose of the assessment

"If you had asked us what joint working was like in the first few weeks, I'm not sure what we would have said. But now we've settled in, we wouldn't ever go back to the old ways. This is so very much better" A Police caseworker in Bristol

This study, which began on 19.9.00 and terminated on 26.10.00, was designed as a preliminary assessment of 6 early "beacon" CJU sites around the country. We refer to these early starters as 'beacon' sites because they are the pathfinders for others who will move at a slower pace. The Team's intention is to help those currently planning collocation to avoid unnecessary duplications of effort in joint planning. Importantly, this study is not intended to be a precisely costed evaluation of the various CJUs, but is an early snapshot of how some collocated-located CJUs are performing after some months, weeks or even days of joint working.

1.2 Background to Glidewell

• Sir Iain Glidewell was commissioned by the Government in 1997 to review The Crown Prosecution Service. His report was published in 1998 and set out 75 recommendations, of which the majority dealt with Crown Prosecution Service internal activities. There was, however, significant advice for the Police and Crown Prosecution Service with regard to their existing working relationships, with particular reference to the need to;
• reduce duplication of effort within the two services,
• improve mutual efficiency and co-ordination and;
• reduce unnecessary delay within the prosecution process.

In essence, Glidewell proposes a move to a single administrative unit, collocating Police and CPS staff, in order to maximise efficiency and eliminate any unnecessary duplication within the prosecution process.

1.3 From Narey to Glidewell

The Glidewell recommendations built generally upon the principles of Martin Narey. His report 'A Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System' was published in 1997. The Narey reforms, piloted in 1997-98, had already proven the benefits of the collaborative approach, and provided an effective springboard for implementation of the Glidewell recommendations. The Narey recommendations were implemented nationally in November 1999.

1.4 A flexible model for Joint Administration

The concept of collocated Criminal Justice Units was contained within the Model for Joint Administration, which is a joint initiative of The CPS and the Police, in response to recommendations made by Glidewell. Following a review of the Glidewell proposals, the Model for Joint Administration was accepted and approved by Ministers as national policy in April 1999. The Criminal Justice Unit Project Group (CJUPG), which produced the Model, was given enhanced terms of reference to facilitate the planning and implementation of the Model for Joint Administration within Criminal Justice Units (ClUs) by forces and CPS Areas.

"The joint planning process involved total honesty between the two organisations. We are now sorting out problems as they arise and not in formal meetings, like we used to" A Lawyer at Halifax

1.5 Outline Planning

The plaque commemorating the opening of the Avon & Somerset Bridewell CJU

Between September and November 1999, Chief Constables and Chief Crown Prosecutors were invited to draw up outline plans to implement CJUs locally. These plans have been received from all Areas and summarised into a migration plan, which was approved by ministers in March 2000. Final detailed plans for the implementation of a local model for joint administration are being developed within the 42 Police Force and CPS areas nationally at varying speeds. A number of areas have the benefit of flexible estates and have the capacity to move quickly to full collocation for the whole or part of their operations, in pursuit of the efficiencies for both organisations sought by Glidewell. The CJU Secretariat formed a working group to undertake assessments at each of the early starter Areas to identify good practice to assist others with their planning process1.

1 Full terms of reference are at Annex 7. Membership of the CJU Working Group is at Annex 8. The listing of principal interviewees is at Annex 9.

Chapter 2

The key objectives in the Model for Joint administration

"The guidance contained within the Glidewell report has been the essential template to judge our performance"

2.1 The Glidewell 9

A Police Administrator at Bristol 2.1 The Glidewell 9 The working group proceeded on the basis of the nine key objectives for compliance with Glidewell determined by the CJU Steering Group, which are;

I) Shorter lines of communication between the Police and CPS;

ii) Minimised transport of files between Police and CPS;

iii) Cost savings by reduction of duplications;

iv) A single file system;

v) Improved file quality and timeliness;

vi) Improved witness warning and witness care;

vii) More effective deployment of staff;

viii) Individuals within each organisation empowered to make day-to-day decisions;

ix) Clearly defined single focus location for the Courts and other agencies;

Chapter 3

Visits to Areas

3.1 Early sites

The following sites were visited as they were the first to attempt Glidewell implementation and as such were self-selecting. Hampshire Portswood Hampshire Isle of Wight Avon & Somerset Bristol South Yorkshire Barnsley West Yorkshire Halifax Essex Colchester

We recognise that there are also Areas and Forces who have established collocated units since the publication of this report, and others involved in extensive planning for Glidewell implementation2.

3.2 Caveat

"We don't oversell things here. It's all going well but we aren't paragons. There is still a long way to go and I don't want people saying that we're all sorted out until we finally are". The CPS Area Business Manager at Hampshire

Each Area has stressed that this is a very early point in joint working to assess impacts. Systems need time to develop and settle, and in some Areas, we visited in the first few days of joint working, where barriers built over years were still in the process of being dismantled and relationships were sometimes understandably edgy. We noted that not one individual interviewed at any level in any of the joint working Areas expressed any desire to return to 'old' separate working practices.

2 Further details of our visits are shown at Annex 1.

Chapter 4

How was early collocation achieved?

4.1 Introduction

"I don't know why we didn't do this years ago. Face-to-face contact is making everyone's job easier. I can now successfully finalise complex negotiations that used to take two weeks in two minutes. This has cleared a perpetual backlog of query cases off my desk" An Inspector at Barnsley

Common themes have emerged at each Area. Derived from our initial question of how Areas and Forces had achieved collocation so early in the process, the following points emerged.

4.2 Early planning

"It all came at the right time, really. The force was already considering extensive change when Narey and Glidewell were published, so it made perfect sense to combine everything into one big change programme" A Police manager in Halifax

The beacon Areas have demonstrated what can be done within a short timescale. Some have undertaken extensive planning over many months from June 1999, while others have spent less time in planning, preferring to deal with problems as they arise. Those with the longest planning cycle have had the least problems during implementation, stressing the importance of planning the change process3.

4.3 The Glidewell nine key objectives were used as a focus for change

"Being first wasn't easy. We weren't sure of what we should or could do. Perhaps the only real guidance was the modelling that the Glidewell group had published. Even then, we had to make some things up as we went along. It's been a learning process for ourselves and CPS" A Police manager at Bristol

There has been a clear focus towards achievement the 9 objectives of Glidewell and virtually no misinterpretation of the definitions of the aims and intentions of the Glidewell proposals. Each Area has tabulated their anticipated savings in line with Glidewell and actively sought the appropriate efficiencies within their processes. Service level agreements and protocols were established to avoid confusion between agencies, allowing for amendments to systems and procedures as they jointly defined best practice in day-to-day contact.4

3 See Annex 2 for an example of an outline project plan for joint working. 4 An example of a Service Level Agreement from Halifax is shown at Annex 3.

4.4 Immediate availability of accomodation

"It was the availability of a suitable building that made us start here at Halifax. We could get it ready with a few modifications at reasonably low cost and start more or less straight away" The Head of the Criminal Justice for West Yorkshire

With few exceptions, CPS and the Police agreed to pilot joint-working practices where there was immediate availability of suitable or semi-suitable accomodation, or where some form of joint-working was already in place. Most used their 'straightforward' sites to develop plans to deal with further pilots elsewhere in their Areas. Only one Glidewell site seen to date (Bristol) is in a major population centre. CJUs serviced one or more magistrates' courts and normally at least one Police division or district. Most CJU 'areas' had multiple charging centres servicing the CJU which were not considered problematic, although magistrates' courts would have difficulties if serviced by more than one CJU.

4.5 Leadership and encouragement from senior management in both agencies

"The Chiefs of both organisations have really put their money where their mouth is and driven our joint working process" A Police manager in Hampshire

Every Area has the full and unequivocal support of Chief Constables and Chief Crown Prosecutors, usually expressed through direct involvement in the planning process and provision of the appropriate funding. Where Chiefs could not be directly involved, there are individuals empowered within both organisations to take decisions on their behalf. It was important at the planning stage that the appropriate decision makers in both organisations were involved. All Areas plan full evaluation of projects approximately six months after the commencement, and at regular intervals thereafter.

4.6 Joint process management

"When we first started, everything was formal and decisions were taken by committee. Now that we know each other, meetings have gone by the board and we just sort things out on a day-today basis" A CPS lawyer in Halifax

Regular cross-agency meetings were held to monitor progress and address matters of concern as they arose. Agreed common aims and objectives were drafted and a common culture developed. While paying regard to national concerns, local solutions to local problems were encouraged. The Police and CPS pooled available support resource, such as TV and video facilities, law libraries, kitchen facilities and access to faxes, copiers and telephones. Opportunities to pool other resources, such as courier services, were examined. Certain aspects of the prosecution process were being jointly targeted for improvement where they caused particular difficulties to agencies such as reduction of the amount of occasions where Police officers went to court and were not subsequently required. Other agencies, such as the Courts and Probation Service, were involved as interested participants in the change process.

4.7 Positive attitudes and encouragement from all managers during transition

Managers at all sites projected positive attitudes and encouragment at all levels in both agencies during the transition. The change process was jointly and fully documented and anticipated benefits signposted for the attention of staff. Tolerance, goodwill and flexibility became an absolute prerequisite for Police and CPS staff. Managers have reminded staff of the continuing nature of the change process.

4.8 Staff needs were central to the change management process

"You cannot undertake change on this scale without taking all the staff with you, and that means constant information and consultation, with everybody, all the time" A CPS administrator at Colchester

The planning process in all Areas involved administrators as well as managers to ensure that joint administrative processes were fully process mapped and documented. Staff associations in both organisations (Unison, the FDA and PCS) have legitimate concerns which can only be dealt with through full and frank involvement in the planning process. Consequently, Chief Officers avoided major problems with unions despite differential pay scales and supervision within joint units Staff were fully informed of all aspects of the projects at all times. Each agency recognised the entirely natural fear of change that change procedures could engender and managed the difficult transitional period with sensitivity and good humour.

4.9 Flexible local financial arrangements

"We know that CPS can't always immediately match our spending, but we remain flexible about what we are prepared to pay in the short term pending HQ agreements to The CPS longer-term spending plans. It all seems to balance out" A Police Manager in Hampshire

There is an imbalance between the Police and The CPS at a local level in the availability of additional resources to fund accommodation changes. At those sites visited, pragmatic arrangements have been developed to enable new structures to be established, following a broad principle of costs lying where they fall. Where CPS staff have been accommodated within police premises, the bulk of the associated costs have been absorbed by the Police, with the prospect of compensating savings flowing from a single file system, and closer access to lawyers and caseworkers reducing communication costs.

The CPS has received £5 million of additional funding from Round 2 of the Capital Modernisation Fund to assist in the capital costs of establishing Criminal Justice Units and Trial Units. All CPS Areas are bidding against this fund to assist in the establishment of these units in both Police and CPS premises. Some flexibility was applied at a number of sites visited to secure mutual and early benefits because the Police recognised that CPS, as a national organisation, could not always match the speed of local Police decision-making. Although Chief Crown Prosecutors have autonomy to take local decisions, there were also issues that sometimes affected national CPS interests, with consequent delay while these were being considered centrally.

4.10 Joint training

"This is something we have needed for a long time. The Police and ourselves have common interests within the prosecution process so it makes sense to do our training together. It also reduces our costs" A CPS Manager in West Yorkshire

All Areas undertook some form of joint training on the new joined-up processes, including staff exchanges prior to join-up and joint Police/CPS training days. Managers ensured that the combined staff were sufficiently trained in the short-term to enable them to carry out the combined functionality of the unit.

4.11 Maximised use of existing IT

The difficulties of CPS as they embarked on a major national IT programme were recognised. Some flexibility was allowed for the development of interim IT solutions, such as locating CPS systems on Police premises, or maximising the use of fax communication over letter exchange. Properly integrated IT systems will enhance work processes in the joint CJUs. Good examples of IT use include CPS reliance on Police IT for case tracking or vice-versa. Where there are currently two systems, there is an acceptance that efforts should be made to secure savings from unnecessary duplication.

The assessment suggests that while better integrated IT systems can enhance the functionality of the CJU, it cannot replace the clear benefits secured from physical collocation, face to face communication, and joint working.

4.12 Professional independence respected

"Wearing a Police ID badge in Police premises is just a sensible security measure and doesn't challenge our independence in any way. True independence, and that of the Police, comes from mutual respect of each others role within the criminal justice system" A Lawyer at Halifax

The necessary independence of each agency was considered at all sites. For example, in one Area, Police staff were reminded not to refer to 'our lawyers' when discussing CPS advocates. In another, CPS staff are requested not to task Police staff to undertake core CPS tasks. All Areas were conscious of concerns surrounding public perceptions of independence within the prosecution process which needed to be monitored and respected.

Where there was doubt about procedures (as with jointly headed notepaper) external opinions were sought and advice respected. Some Areas stressed that the combined arrangements referred to joint administration and did not impinge on the independence of legal decision making.

4.13 Improved file endorsement

"CPS lawyers had to, and did improve their endorsements on files as we needed to be able read and understand them to know what to do with the file before and after court. No jargon, either" A Police caseworker at Halifax

CPS file endorsements needed to be clear, legible and without jargon to be actioned by Police staff. This was an important action prior to collocation as Police supporting the magistrates' court prosecution process needed to be able to read and understand actions required within endorsements to maintain files, particularly following court.

4.14 Centralised CJUs

Areas rationalised their existing Police CJUs and were planning further centralisation. This assisted Police and CPS staff deployment in providing robust and sustainable units, large enough to deal with the normal contingencies of sickness, leave and other absences, and avoided the threats to actual and perceived independence of both organisations by the over-fragmentation of resources.

Chapter 5

Emerging benefits

5.1 Introduction

The team found significant benefits already arising from the introduction of collocated joint working. Glidewell objectives were being met or being sought at all sites5. Emerging benefits are listed below.

5.2 Improved communication through face-to-face contact

"It's absolutely brilliant to have access to lawyers. I can sort out complex issues in minutes that would have taken weeks and weeks of letters and faxes" The Charging Sergeant at Portswood

All Areas reported that from the outset, the proximity of Police and CPS prosecution staff reduced delay. Police enquiries to CPS, which used to take weeks to clear where now resolved satisfactorily in minutes. Complex inter-agency negotiations requiring protracted paper contact were able to be resolved in minutes by face-to-face communication. Greatly improved dialogue between CPS staff and enquiry officers improved liaison, cut down unnecessary copying, reduced administrative work and improved timeliness. Both agencies confirmed that joint working reduced costs (too soon to quantify). The major beneficiaries, however, were the public, especially victims and witnesses, who received a better quality service in terms of earlier notification of processes and prompt resulting.

5.3 Improved staff morale

"For me, the biggest surprise was how quiet things are in the section with no phones ringing. It makes you realise how often we phoned each other for queries that we now sort out in person" A CPS Manager at the IoW

Without exception, all staff visited were pleased with the progress and improvements that had been made through the implementation of their models for joint administration and had no wish to return to 'old' procedures. Every Area told of examples of increased social activity, with joint tea clubs, collections for social events and external activities. There were also evidence of a new courtesy between the organisations, replacing a "them and us" mentality that existed previously in some Areas.

5 At the time of the assessment, only South Yorkshire (Barnsley) had undertaken a mid-pilot review of joint processes in line with the 9 key objectives.Fuller details are shown at Annex 5.

5.4 Shorter lines of communication

The joint-working certificate at Barnsley, signed by the Chief Constable and the DPP

Colchester reported that speedier notification of proposed discontinuance had reduced wasted effort on upgrading files unnecessarily and review of unused material was easier because of improved access. In Southampton, all pre-court communication was directed to CJU administrative staff rather than CPS staff, saving time by referring issues directly to relevant individuals within the Police, such as the officer in the case. A police sergeant worked directly adjacent to CPS lawyers ensuring that queries were dealt with immediately and that charges were appropriate.

5.5 Minimised transport of files between CPS and the Police

CPS and Police staff in the same building reduced file movement to a minimum, leading to faster information exchange and offering CPS the opportunity to review files quicker. Discussions with custody staff facilitated issues to be clarified or advice provided at an early stage in the prosecution process. Evidential file additions and supplements could also be easily passed to the lawyer along with the file.

5.6 Cost savings by reduction of duplications

In Colchester, duplications were reduced through the Police not supplying MG20s6 with additional evidence. The tracking of duplicate files was eliminated through the single file system. There were also significant reductions for Areas in stationery, typing and telephony.

"A single file system can be hard work and it needs a lot of effort and trust to get it right. But the benefits are obvious and it has to be the way ahead for the vast bulk of cases" A CPS Manager in Essex

5.7 Savings through a single file system

Closer working has assisted the development of single-file systems in some sites visited. Colchester, Bristol and Barnsley have adopted the single file system for most magistrates' court prosecutions. Joint staff groups on file handling were set up to identify barriers and benefits of introducing a single file and even during the early stages, the 'single file' approach showed signs of success in terms of reduced copying, paper and storage costs. One advantage was the expeditious return of files to the Police for post-court actions where the case had not been finalised at Court which eliminated the need for a lawyer to return the file to The CPS offices and communicate actions/requests through memos sent to the Police, with built-in and significant delay.

The single file approach had risks attached to it that require careful management to avoid files 'going missing'. Where cases are particularly sensitive, a duel copy was usually created. Additionally, where cases were complex and required simultaneous work by Police/Lawyers, particularly in relation to upgrading to full files, duel files or partial duel files were usually created. In Essex, the duel file only contains relevant information required by the Officer and the whole file is not copied. South Yorkshire and Essex were planning a single file system for Crown Court cases, where it was hoped that the Crown Court process would be supported by a Police presence within the Trials Unit.

5.8 Improved file quality and timeliness

All sites reported that file quality and timeliness had improved due to the closer proximity of staff. The efficiencies of the single file system allowed a greater focus on file quality and timeliness. In Halifax, access to unused material at the CJU proved beneficial for lawyers. Custody time limits were also being monitored more efficiently. Southampton had seen an improvement in their JPM figures under joint working and Bristol reported that more files were now 'on time' due to closer proximity to the Police.

5.9 Improved witness warning and care and victim support

Ready access to relevant information proved beneficial to victim and witness care and support. Southampton reported greater accuracy of witness data leading to a reduction in the number of officers called to give evidence at court on rest days. In Bristol, witness information was more up-to-date, allowing earlier notification or cancellation where necessary. It is anticipated that further benefits will be identified within the joint working arrangements with the implementation of 'Special Measures' under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act.

5.10 More effective deployment of staff

"The biggest saving for us has been the Police supporting our magistrates' court preparation process, enabling us to move our staff to more serious casework. We reckon it's saved us about £20,000 this year" The Area Business Manager for South Yorkshire

At some sites, such as Colchester, Barnsley and Halifax, all aspects of CPS magistrates' court file administration duties had or were being taken over by the Police within the CJU, enabling CPS to deploy administrative staff on more serious casework, often within Trials or Crown Court Units. This removal of unnecessary work reduced delay in the prosecution process and allowed staff of both agencies more time to concentrate on core tasks. In Barnsley, this has already saved £20,000 of staff effort for CPS, available for deployment on other duties.

There were Police concerns about their ability to take on this administrative function without additional staffing being employed. In South Yorkshire, there were initially strong concerns about the capacity of the Police to take on magistrates' courts administrative functions without the need to employ additional staff. On the other hand, West Yorkshire Police were content to take on the entire process, releasing CPS staff for other duties. In Essex, the Police took on all administrative functions, with no extra staff and have, in fact, reduced administrative staff numbers. In Avon and Somerset there was agreement that CPS admin staff would work alongside Police admin staff within the unit.

6 Form MG 20 is a Manual of Guidance communication front sheet.

5.11 Individuals within both organisations empowered to make day-to-day decisions

All sites provided evidence of Police and CPS staff communicating to resolve or clarify local issues and of decision-making without unnecessary referral outside the unit. Each organisation contributed to joint management while retaining specific line management responsibility for their own staff. Improved local management by CPS contributed to removing the perception of some police officers that CPS had moved into Police premises but brought their old ways of working with them. In all sites, access to Police managers for actionable decision making was readily available, in line with the original Glidewell recommendations.

5.12 Clearly defined single focus for the courts and other agencies

Joint logos on display at the entrance to the Avon & Somerset CJU

Local publicity was employed effectively to inform other agencies of the new arrangements. The CJU quickly became the recognised local focal point for the defence, victims and witnesses and other agencies,.

Chapter 6

What early lessons have been learnt?

6.1 Introduction

The change process required implementing Glidewell presented new challenges to both organisations. The working group was asked to ascertain if there were any recurring rubbingpoints best to be avoided by others during future implementation of joint working 7. These were as follows:

6.2 Plan with the key decision makers

In hindsight, one of the identified difficulties in certain areas was that the appropriate decision makers did not always attend planning and preparation meetings. West Yorkshire emphasized the importance of key decision makers being present to expedite progress at critical times within the project. It was equally important to maintain continuity of attendance at meetings to ensure that knowledge levels of all participants was both up-to-date and accurate. Decision makers should be aware of the adverse effects of their absence from key stages of the planning process.

6.3 Decide on appropriate staffing levels

The allocation of the appropriate number of CPS administrative staff for the collocated CJU section was a potential concern. Failure to agree and provide the correct staffing levels within jointly administered units could lead to tensions between organisations. After discussions in West Yorkshire and Essex, it was agreed that CPS would not provide permanent CPS staff to the Police administration. In Bristol, CPS have reduced the numbers of administrative staff in the CJU from 25 pre-collocation to 15 (some part-time) and expect to maintain around 8-10 fulltime posts, with the remainder redeployed elsewhere. It is important the appropriate level of support to be provided by The CPS should be agreed before the move to joint working.

6.4 Agree appropriate boundaries of responsibility

Some Areas reported difficulties with lawyers directing Police administrative staff, without reference to their line management, usually over requests for files to be traced or actions to be taken. On occasions, some degree of single-point management might be required to ensure the unit's operational efficiency, but, where these arrangements are put in place, they need to be made clear to all concerned. Joint management problems diminish as both agencies become familiar with the parameters of each other's responsibilities under joint working. Just as independence of decision making is important to CPS, independence of management structures is important to both The CPS and the Police and administrative staff should only be directed by their own line management.

6.5 Improve the quality of file endorsements before collocation

The adequacy or otherwise of CPS file endorsements has been commented on many times by The CPS Inspectorate following their examinations of files within CPS branches. Equally, CPS had concerns over the legibility of certain handwritten Police files. Unsurprisingly, Police staff handling CPS files, usually for the first time, reported difficulties with notation on or within the file. Police administrative staff reported that endorsement inadequacies covered three main areas, which were:

• No endorsement;
• Illegible or inadequate endorsement, or;
• Use of jargon or local abbreviation.

These caused difficulties in actioning files and resulted in wasteful checks with the lawyers concerned to determine what was required. Most Police staff also commented on major improvements in all aspects of endorsements following face-to-face representations. Improving endorsements prior to collocation eases the transition to new ways of working.

6.6 Developing IT in a common administration

The Police administrative section within the Bristol & Avon Bridewell, linked to the Police IT system

Developing IT support in CJUs has not been without problems while both CPS and the Police have awaited the provision of modern strategic systems. Most Police forces have quite widespread but locally developed, IT support for case tracking and in some forces, case management systems. In contrast, The CPS has been an IT desert, limited to one of three basic case tracking systems, operated by a handful of staff on very few standalone terminals.

A 12 month IT programme (Connect 42) across all CPS Areas commenced in November 1999. When complete all CPS staff will have access to a common IT infrastructure, providing an intranet and access to legal reference material. Secure E-mail links will be provided across the whole of The CPS via GSI and with the Police through PNN2. Further benefits will be secured when the strategic NSPIS Custody and Case Preparation products are badged and rolled out across forces.

Rather than await rollout of the strategic system, the early sites have adopted a pragmatic approach to IT support whilst introducing their joint working arrangements. At Halifax, to reduce duplication, the Police and CPS relied on the police Tracker system to provide witness information, custody details, casetracking and magistrates' court links. Use of The CPS System 36 was restricted to collecting performance indicators. At Bristol, additional terminals were provided to CPS staff to enable access to the Police system which includes e-mail across the force, casetracking and other facilities. Again use of The CPS system was restricted to PIs. (See also para 4.11)

One of the purposes of the additional funding provided to The CPS from the Capital Modernisation Fund is to provide links from collocated CJUs in police premises to The CPS Connect 42 infrastructure.

6.7 Recognise that national and local decision-making processes will differ

While effective partnerships have been developed at a local level by local decision makers, some frustration was expressed by Police and CPS at delay caused both by having to refer some issues for CPS central advice or authority, and apparent slow internal handling at CPS HQ. Local CPS managers need to involve CPS HQ at an early stage, be clear about their level of local empowerment, and ensure that the Police are aware of these constraints.

Chapter 7

Good practice

7.1 Introduction

The team was asked to identify examples of particular successes in the pilot Areas. Examples of these are given below.

7.2 Advanced and detailed preparation

"At times like this, where important changes are underway, you need all the help and advice you can get with the little things, as well as the big things" A CPS Manager at the IoW

The better the planning, the better the implementation. This process includes before-and-after analysis, seeking extensive advice and support, and making contact with others who have previous joint-working experience. In most areas, the Police and CPS have undertaken analysis of performance prior to the introduction of collocation, enabling accurate comparison with postjoint working performance levels. West Yorkshire and Essex involved members of the Glidewell Working Group as support for their local planning. Beacon sites also communicated on a regular basis8. Areas will need to refer to the original Glidewell report, which contains much useful advice9.

7.3 Multi-skilled and flexible administrative staff

CPS caseworker Dan Twemlow on the Hampshire Police IT system at Portswood

As joint working developed, it became apparent that systems could be changed or improved to suit particular local situations. This required flexibility and often some multi-skilling to ensure, in particular, that a smaller number of staff could cover a wider range of duties. In the Isle of Wight, management ensured that all members of the CJU recognised and accepted that their individual role within the joint CJU might change to ensure that unnecessary duplications were reduced.

7.4 Joint Quality Review

In Hampshire, the Implementation Group established Quality Review Groups comprising staff of all levels and from various areas (Police officers, administrative staff and lawyers) to meet regularly and discuss developments. This group instigated changes in procedures where it was felt that these would be beneficial and promote better team working. This joint approach reduced most of the known rubbing points between the agencies.

8 Visits to joint-working sites need to be managed to avoid 'tourism overload'. 9 The Glidewell Working Group is to establish a website at www.acpo.police.uk for on-line help. Additionally, joint-working awaydays are planned to enable representatives to meet Beacon site staff.

7.5 Alphabetical Filing

Most CPS Branches currently file live cases in drawers or cabinets by case hearing date, which can make search and retrieval both time-consuming and costly. The Police at Barnsley have developed an A-Z file system for CPS live cases, linked to case ownership over bands of the alphabet. This has proved highly beneficial for answering queries on cases. It offers no difficulties with court preparation, as Barnsley court lists are locally alphabetical and much easier to construct from an alphabetical file base.

Alphabetical filing for live cases at Barnsley, showing alpha split ownership by Police administrative staff

7.6 Police ownership of the file until 'Trial ready'

At Barnsley, Police retention of the file until 'trial ready' has minimised unnecessary and fragmented effort by CPS administrative staff and reviewing lawyers and ensures that file upgrades and supplements are only passed on with the completed file. In a joint-working environment, CPS staff will have access while a file is being built, should need arise.

7.7 A change-management newsletter

In Halifax, a weekly briefing sheet is produced. Copies are circulated to all local CPS and Police staff and other interested parties.

7.8 Service level agreement with defence practitioners

In Barnsley, the defence locally signed up to a service level agreement undertaking to be prepared by court start time, having taken instructions, and advised clients of the discount available for early guilty pleas.

Chapter 8

Conclusion

8.1 A collocated model for Joint Administration

The early assessment has confirmed that a collocated Model for Joint Administration (MJA) has the potential to maximise the benefits obtainable from the 9 Glidewell objectives. Whilst the MJA is flexible and allows for a range of options dependent on local circumstances, the assessment suggests that maximum benefits can be secured from a collocated solution where:

• the police are willing to assume some or all responsibility for the administration for magistrates' court casework, allowing the freeing up of CPS resources to focus on more serious casework, provide better court coverage, and improve the service for victims and witnesses;
• accommodation suitable for collocation can be found within existing police and CPS estate, or can be secured with the assistance of additional resources from the Capital Modernisation Fund or similar initiatives. Flexibility and creativity of approach towards the acquisition and use of new or existing accommodation is required;
• the actual and perceived independence of both agencies is supported by the creation and management of robust, viable and sustainable CJUs; 8.2 Geography of the area Successful collocation is dependent on the geography of the Area, taking into account the location and number of police stations and courts to be served, and the number of personnel from both organisations that can be assigned to each unit.

8.3 Develop the best available solution

Where a collocated solution is not immediately achievable, Chief Crown Prosecutors and Chief Constables will wish to develop interim solutions as part of a staged approach to full collocation which best secures each of the 9 Glidewell objectives.

8.4 Further guidance

Further, more detailed guidance from the Working Group can be obtained from the annexes to this report, including Annex 1 which contains a number of frequently asked questions and some proposed solutions.

Annexes

Frequently asked questions about CJU implementation and collocation10

Q1 How is Collocation implementation best managed?

It is important that any change of this magnitude is treated as a project and is properly managed. Essex adopted a specific project management software system Prince, adapted to avoid excessive paperwork, which has enabled a smooth transition to a CJU. Prince methodology ensures that a Project Board is established at a senior level with an implementation project team working to it.

Q2 How should we involve staff in the process?

The best way is to establish implementation teams involving representatives from all staff to work out operational issues and communicate the workings of the group to other staff. Members need to ensure that they represent the views of all other staff and links to any local sounding boards. It is important that staff who actually do the job are involved in process mapping. Staff associations should also be informed of plans and should be involved as much as possible. Problems have been avoided through on-going communication and participation. Each agency has recognised the natural fear of change that collocation may bring and that difficulties can be minimised by being as open as possible.

Q3 Where and how do you start setting up the new processes?

A good starting point is to establish a joint team from the Police and The CPS to map existing systems. This should identify the current process as well as any problems that might be resolved in a co-located environment. It also enables any 'wasted work' (primarily duplication) to be identified and action taken to remove it. A Guide the Process Mapping has been produced by CPS Management Audit Services (MAS) and is available to all agencies on request and is also available on the ACPO web site. The implementation team should examine how the new processes will operate through further process mapping. Once these have been established, they should form the basis for Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for the new arrangements. Essex used the services of a private consultancy to draw-up the new procedures and West Yorkshire used CPS MAS. This stage should also allow for a re-evaluation of roles and responsibilities within the Unit, the key being that tasks should not be duplicated by agencies.

Q4 Are funds available to facilitate change?

Funding varies in each location and agency. Clearly, CPS funding is proportionately much less than that available to the Police at a local level, and the division of responsibility should normally reflect this. Some of the early sites have demonstrated the effectiveness of mutually advantageous local financial arrangements to accelerate purchasing when setting up their units. The CPS has obtained funding from Round 2 of the Capital Modernisation Fund and is making a further bid to Round 3. These funds have been made available specifically to support the establishment of CJUs and TUs.

Q5 How is line management dealt with in the CJU?

While the functions of the CJU may be jointly managed by the two agencies, existing line management arrangements for staff must be retained within each organisation. There does need to be some flexibility in day-to-day work allocation procedures. Neither agency has supremacy over the other, regardless of functionality or numbers of staff. Both administrative managers (Police and CPS) should jointly supervise the day-to-day running of the unit. In the longer term, it is expected that the demarcation between staff, including the management thereof, will become less of an issue.

Q6 Can Police staff work on CPS processes?

The answer is 'yes'. Joint working is encouraged in both Police and CPS premises. The key is to ensure that areas of responsibility are clearly outlined for all staff in the joint units in Service Level Agreements underpinned by clear procedural notes, based mainly on process mapping exercises, and training.

Q7 How is independence maintained in a collocated CJU?

Independence can be a key concern of those embarking on collocation. Public perception of independence within the prosecution process has been a key issue for both agencies in planning and implementation. One issue that raised concerns was a proposal to use joint Police/CPS headed notepaper in the CJU to communicate with other CJS stakeholders. On reflection it was considered that whilst the administrations were joined to secure sensible economy and efficiency, joint headed notepaper could be misinterpreted and the scheme was withdrawn. It is also important that proper independence is maintained within the CJU structure. Areas have dealt with this challenge through local protocols, which deal for example with concerns about lawyers being unduly pressurised by police officers about specific cases. Some CJUs have introduced procedures for making appointments or filtering requests to lawyers through nominated staff. In the same way, CPS staff need to be equally conscious of the independence of the Police investigative function.

Q8 How effective is a single file system within a CJU?

Single file systems are being adopted in some Areas. Where a system has been put in place (as in Essex) it has generally been successful and has begun to make savings because of reduced photocopying, paper and storage costs. Procedures need to be agreed for situations where the file is required simultaneously by Police and CPS. Early sites confirmed that implementation of single file systems was not easy, and required considerable perseverence and trust between agencies, especially in the early stages.

Q9 Will appraisals/performance & development reviews be affected by joint working?

Appraisals will continue to be carried out by the line manager in the "home" agency, as per existing procedures. The line manager may, before completing an appraisal, seek the opinion of the other manager if the individual has worked to a significant extent for the other manager. The other manager will not have access to the appraisal paperwork.

Q10 What about grievance procedures?

Grievance procedures regarding staff within the same agency remain unchanged in light of joint working practices.

Q11 How should managers deal with any discipline issues?

Disciplinary issues are dealt with by the management of the relevant agency. It may be necessary for staff/managers from the other agency to be involved in the disciplinary procedure, such as being interviewed or attending hearings. The relevant agency will retain paperwork relating to personnel issues as per their existing procedures.

Q12 What about recruitment for joint working sites?

Recruitment of staff remains an issue for each organisation independently, although each agency should recognise the benefits of involving the other, at an appropriate level, in the recruitment process. Terms and conditions of employment for new staff are unaffected by Glidewell, with each member of staff being governed by their agency's rules, although applicants for employment should be advised of the change in structure prior to interview.

All CPS staff undergo clearance in the form of a BC (basic check) carried out to verify identity and character and a NIS search is run to check for any previous convictions. This allows staff access to any government assets marked 'restricted' and 'confidential' and occasional access to assets marked 'secret'. This government marking scheme has now been adopted by ACPO for Police use.

Due to the sensitivity and nature of their work, the Police may wish to carry out their own clearance as part of their procedures. CPS staff who are based in Police stations must be willing to undergo any additional local vetting procedures required by the Police. If this is the case, it is important to note that:

• Clearance carried out by the Police to work unsupervised or unescorted in their property is wholly the responsibility of the Police and does not form part of any CPS clearance procedures;
• Any adverse results or information brought to light as a result of Police clearance will be a matter for the Head of Personnel to action. CPS staff will require assurances that any information regarding an application will be treated sensitively.

Probationary periods remain the same for both agencies. Staff will be entitled to apply for posts within the other agency which are advertised externally, if they so wish, on the understanding that they will be treated no differently to other external, or indeed internal applicants. In the event of being offered and accepting a post with the other agency, that member of staff will be required to resign. Staff are not entitled to apply for posts with the other agency which are only advertised internally. Notice periods for staff within the CJU are unchanged.

Q13 How should we approach differing retirement ages?

The normal retirement age for both agencies remains unchanged although the retirement age for CPS is currently under review.

Q14 Are there any changes to sickness procedures under collocation?

Sick leave and sickness monitoring policies for both agencies remain unchanged. The manager concerned deals with any issues concerning the health and welfare of a member of staff. Only in the event of an emergency and in the absence of the appropriate manager will the other organisations manager intervene, on the basis that they will apply the policy and procedure of the parent organisation of the member of staff. If such an event occurs, the relevant line manager must be informed as soon as possible of any actions taken.

A member of staff reporting in sick should do so to either manager, before the commencement of their shift or normal start time, on the first day of their absence. Where local management have a policy of contacting staff who are on sick leave periodically, as a staff welfare initiative, this should apply to all staff from either agency working within that unit. Some Police forces operate a welfare system whereby staff on sick leave are sent gifts periodically during sick leave or periods of hospitalisation. This is a contributory scheme run by some Forces, which is not in lieu of any office collections that may still take place.

Q15 What changes are there to annual leave procedures?

Annual leave entitlements are unchanged by joint working practices. Since the authorisation of annual leave will be determined by the overall staffing levels for the unit, joint managers need to put a mechanism in place whereby both are aware of all annual leave booked so that any further requests can be considered fairly. Either manager can usually authorise annual leave for any member of staff on the understanding that all supervising staff are kept informed. In the event of a member of staff feeling that their request for annual leave has been dealt with unfairly, they should raise it with their line manager in the first instance.

Q16 What about special leave?

This remains unchanged, and in general both agencies work a similar policy. Details of special leave entitlements are contained in the Personnel Manuals for both agencies, which should be available for reference. Q17 Is pay affected? Pay scales for all staff remain unchanged, and any pay awards subsequently remain independent of the other agency.

Q18 Are Equal Opportunity policies affected?

There are no differentials between the Police and CPS on equal opportunity policy. All staff working within the joint CJU should be treated fairly, regardless of their employment, or any disability, their sex, race, colour, marital status, sexual orientation, or religion. Staff will be expected to treat all their co-workers within the unit fairly, regardless of employer.

Q19 Who is responsible for Health and Safety regulations under joint working?

Health and safety issues within the Police are the joint responsibility of the Divisional Administration Manager within the Police station where the Joint CJU is housed, and each individual member of staff. Therefore, all staff are required, regardless of organisation, to take any necessary actions arising though health and safety which the DAM instructs them to do. For example, all staff are expected to familiarize themselves with evacuation procedures as a matter of priority. As an employer, The CPS will continue to have a responsibility for its staff. This requires regular Health & Safety assessments and checks as laid out in the service's Health and Safety manual. Local arrangements will need to be set up to meet each agency's requirements.

Q20 What about Office Hours?

CJUs are usually manned from 8.00 a.m. until 5.00 p.m., although these times can be exceeded if it is felt appropriate and agreed locally. Managers should jointly ensure that adequate staff are available at all times. Offices are not open routinely at weekends, although there may be occasions when weekend work is required or when files are needed for Saturday courts.

Flexi-Time?

Both organisations operate flexi-time systems, which differ slightly. For reference, both schemes are usually outlined in Personnel Manuals available within the CJU.

Smoking?

There is a policy of No Smoking within all Police stations and any member of staff from either agency, or any visitors to the station who wish to smoke, should be asked to do so in the designated area outside of the station building. Smoking breaks are not a right of any member of Police staff. However, they may be allowed at the discretion of local management. If smoking breaks are allowed, all staff should be informed, and all staff should be equally entitled to take such a break if they wish. Smoking breaks are to be taken in the employee's own time, and staff will be required to make up any time taken within any given flexi-time period.

Dress and Conduct Codes?

Staff from both agencies are always expected to conduct themselves in an appropriate and professional manner. In the event of a member of staff being felt to be conducting themselves inappropriately, this should be initially raised with the appropriate line-manager. Dress codes for the staff of each agency remain unchanged.

Communications Policy?

All relevant staff should be informed of developments at precisely the same time.

Dealing with correspondence, post and DX?

Incoming post is dealt with by staff, regardless of organisation, unless it is marked "private and confidential" or "restricted". DX continues to be used as a method of document delivery.

Finance?

A memorandum of understanding between both agencies should be drawn up to cover funding issues. This should be signed by senior management and issued to staff for information.

Car Parking?

All sites visited were housed in Police premises and car parking on Police property is a Police Divisional Management reponsibility. Most sites suffered from limited parking even before collocation and CPS staff could not always be guaranteed access for parking at the Beacon sites. This was particularly problematic in the Isle of Wight where CPS staff had unlimited parking at their previous office. Most CJUs made some parking arrangement for the Unit Head and a limited number of CPS staff but others, such as Portswood, relied on public or street parking. CPS staff are expected to conform to any local Police rules and regulations that are in place for parking at joint-working sites.

Telephones?

The provision of telephones and payment of telephone bills varied from site to site. In Bristol, there was agreement that any costs arising in Police premises would be met by the Police and CPS would meet any costs incurred in their premises including telephones and any recurrent charges arising. In Barnsley, CPS installed their own phones in Police premises and paid their own bills while in Halifax, the Police provided phones on the Police system and paid bills but expected a contribution from CPS to cover CPS costs. All sites reported that negotiations over phones had proved unproblematic.

Where police forces practice routine monitoring of telephone calls in line with their stated policy, an agreement not to monitor calls from telephones used by CPS staff should be introduced to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of these communications, particularly with defence solicitors.

Visits to Collocated Criminal Justice Units

Background

The Working Group visited the following Areas:

• Colchester (Essex)
• Barnsley (South Yorkshire)
• Halifax (West Yorkshire)
• Southampton Portswood (Hampshire)
• Isle of Wight (Hampshire)
• Bristol (Avon & Somerset)

The study was designed as an early stage assessment of the current pilot Areas around the country. It was not intended to be a costed evaluation of individual CJUs - merely an early snapshot of progress.

Findings

The following are summaries of the findings by individual Area. They contain information on:

• Pre-Glidewell arrangements;
• Implementing Glidewell;
• Assessment against the 9 Glidewell objectives/ realised benefits;
• Future proposals; · Impact on resources (where comment was possible);
• Model adopted by each CJU Area.

Each summary is preceded by a copy of the approved, flexible, Model for Joint Administration (MJA), shaded to illustrate how the site described has been broadly configured.

ESSEX: COLCHESTER CJU

To view the flow chart of 'Essex: Colchester CJU' please see page 39 of the PDF version of this document.

Pre-Glidewell

Essex Police force consists of 10 Police divisions, supported by 6 prosecution units There are 9 magistrates' courts and 3 Crown Courts. The CPS is centrally located within a single branch at Chelmsford.

Implementing Glidewell

A collocated Criminal Justice Unit (CJU) was established in September 2000 at Colchester, comprising 7 CPS lawyers and 1 Designated Caseworker, sited in Police accommodation.

Glidewell objectives/realised benefits

i) Shorter lines of communication between the Police and CPS

• Further information memorandi replaced by well received 'face to face' communication
• Reviewing unused material is made easier
• Better understanding between agencies of their mutual roles and difficulties
• Upgraded files actioned more quickly
• Problems resolved more quickly through direct communication

ii) Minimised transport of files between Police and CPS

• Lawyers and Police working in same office means files require minimal movement
• Faster exchange of information · CPS has opportunity to review files and discuss with Custody staff to clarify issues/give advice
• Police can finalise files more quickly

iii) Cost savings by reduction of duplications

• Paperwork and related tasks have reduced, such as not supplying MG20's (and copies) with additional evidence, not chasing extra copies of files and speedier resulting of finalised cases
• Earlier notification of proposed discontinuance has reduced wasted effort for upgraded files
• Collocation efficiencies allow Police to reduce their staff in the administrative section whilst taking on additional CPS tasks

iv) A single file system

• A single file system is in place and this also extends to full summary trial files
• Initial concerns over the operation of the system have turned out to be unfounded

v) Improved file quality and timeliness

• Quality has improved through full information being on files in Court
• File quality still an issue which Collocation should improve further
• File timeliness has improved due to the close proximity between the Police and CPS staff
• Involvement of the Magistrates' Court staff and Police CJU staff in information exchange in cases involving certain witnesses and victims

vi) Improved witness warning and witness care

• No data at present although survey is currently being organised within the Area
• Supply of information on witness availability and requirement for attendance has speeded up and is more accurate
• Quicker responses to complaints and queries from witnesses because of more efficient processes

vii) More effective deployment of staff

• Multi-skilled administrative staff leads to more effective and flexible deployment

viii) Individuals within each organisation empowered to make day to day decisions

• Relevant staff make necessary local decisions without unnecessary referral

ix) Clearly defined single focus location for the Courts and other agencies

• Significant publicity and presentations to other agencies on new arrangements has confirmed the CJU as the centre of the local prosecution process for all agencies

Future proposals

In the near future, a further three collocated, fully integrated and jointly managed CJUs will be set up in Police accommodation at Harlow, Basildon and Southend, dealing with all MC work including youth cases. Within the same time scale, a central collocated Trials Unit (TU) will be set up at Chelmsford in CPS accommodation, serving Chelmsford, Basildon and Southend CC, and handling all committal work and Crown Court witness warning.

Impact on resources

Pre-Glidewell 183 members of Police and CPS personnel were involved in criminal justice administration. Following collocation, 150 staff will be involved in this work. There are no definite plans for CJU staff numbers in the longer term. A new resource allocation model, using best value principles, will be commissioned to determine appropriate staffing levels once CJUs and TUs have settled in. Monetary savings have been re-invested by Essex Police both within the CJD and elsewhere within the force

SOUTH YORKSHIRE: BARNSLEY CJU

To View the Flow chart of 'South Yorkshire: Barnsley CJU' please see page 43 of the PDF version of this document.

Pre-Glidewell

South Yorkshire Police is organised into 11 operational Police districts. CPS is centrally located at Sheffield in two Branches (Sheffield and South Yorkshire). There are 4 main magistrates' courts at Sheffield, Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley with Crown Courts at Sheffield and Doncaster.

Implementing Glidewell

The collocated CJU, sited in Police accommodation at Barnsley, was introduced in May 2000.

Glidewell objectives/ realised benefits

i) Shorter lines of communication

• Lines of communication between Police and CJU have been substantially reduced
• CPS staff retain use of separate office accommodation within the building

ii) Minimised transport of files between Police and CPS

• File transport is from one desk to another, rather than between buildings
• Crown Court files are still sent to the Committals Unit in Sheffield.

iii) Cost savings by reduction of duplications

• Reduction in copying costs due to introduction of single file system.
• Reduction in communication costs between agencies, particularly in stationery, typing costs and telephony
• No duel case tracking.
• Only Police support staff prepare files for Court.
• Staff time saved by elimination of duplications

iv) A single file system

• Reduction in time spent on file preparation

v) Improved file quality and timeliness

• Efficiencies of single file system allows more focus on relevant file quality and timeliness
• Improvements demonstrated in JPM figures

vi) Improved witness warning and witness care

• Improved communication allows information on witnesses to be actioned more quickly increasing effectiveness of the process

vii) More effective deployment of staff

• Staff savings have enabled resources to be re-directed towards more serious casework.

viii) Individuals within each organisation empowered to make day to day decisions

• Easier access to appropriate decision makers.
• Both agencies have clear line management and authority to make immediate decisions where appropriate

ix) Clearly defined single focus location for the Courts and other agencies

• Opening ceremony promoted the joint CJU
• Other agencies have been fully informed and are content with the new arrangements

Future proposals

There are plans to set up further collocated CJUs at Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield. Doncaster and Rotherham will be in Police premises while Sheffield will be a joint unit collocated with the Trials Unit within CPS accommodation. A single TU for both Crown Courts is envisaged, with up to 30 Police file building and court liaison staff to be collocated with CPS staff. it is envisaged that the South Yorkshire area will be fully collocated by the end of 2001.

Impact on resources

Staff savings have been realised by CPS through Police support for the magistrates' court process, releasing three administrative staff for other work. Further staff savings can be achieved following collocation at Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield. It is intended that savings within The CPS will be directed towards support for more serious casework within the Trials Unit. The Police have also achieved running cost savings, mainly from the implementation of a single file system and shorter lines of communication between the agencies.

WEST YORKSHIRE: HALIFAX CJU

To view the flow chart of 'West Yorkshire: Halifax CJU' please see page 49 of the PDF version of this document.

Pre-Glidewell

The Police are structured into 17 divisions, supported by 5 CJSUs. CPS currently have 4 Branches, 2 at Leeds (Central and North) and one each at Bradford and Wakefield. There are 10 magistrates' courts and Crown Courts are situated at Leeds and Bradford.

Implementing Glidewell

The collocated CJU, sited in Police accommodation at Halifax, opened in September 2000.

Glidewell objectives/ realised benefits

i) Shorter lines of communication between the Police and CPS

• Working in the same building means significant improvements in communication, leading more effective processes

ii) Minimised transport of files between Police and CPS

• Files are handled within the same office, negating the need for file transportation

iii) Cost savings by reductions of duplications

• Too early to provide costings although perception that reducing duplicate activities will lead to savings

iv) A single file system

• Again at an early stage, but staff already perceive benefits

v) Improved file quality and timeliness

• File quality and timeliness has improved
• Availability of unused material at the CJU is very beneficial
• Custody Time Limits system operated more effectively as staff have more time to to deal

vii) More effective deployment of staff

• Reduction in unnecessary delays in the process has allowed staff to focus more time on improving casework
• More effective witness warning has led to less officers being called to Court (particularly on rest days), allowing more time for Police operational work as unnecessarily wasted time is eliminated

viii) Individuals within each organisation empowered to make day to day decisions

• Appropriate individuals make the necessary operational decisions and local managers are constantly available on site

ix) Clearly defined single focus for the Courts and other agencies

• Local publicity has informed other agencies of new arrangements and the CJU is recognised as the focus for local prosecution.

Future proposals

There is commitment to collocation in the long term but plans are hampered by accommodation constraints as there is little vacant space in existing Police or CPS premises and CPS accommodation is on a long lease until 2015. In the short term, Magistrates' Court sections will be created in current branches to link with existing CJSUs to operate Narey. In the medium term, West Yorkshire may be reliant on an IT solution. There are also plans to create discrete Crown Court Units in CPS accommodation at Leeds and Bradford, which will develop into Trial Units. Opportunities are being explored to locate witness warning functions in the TUs

Impact on resources

The establishment of the Halifax CJU will release 4 CPS administrative staff to concentrate on the more serious casework within the Trials Unit, as the Police underpin the magistrates' court prosecution process.

HAMPSHIRE: SOUTHAMPTON PORTSWOOD

To view the flow chart of 'Hampshire: Southampton Portswood' please see page 53 of the PDF version of this document.

Pre-Glidewell

The Police are structured into 15 Divisions supported by 5 CJUs at Aldershot, Basingstoke, Southampton, Portsmouth and Newport (IOW). CPS are based in 4 offices in Basingstoke, Eastleigh, Portsmouth, Newport (Isle of Wight). Magistrates' Courts are sited at Aldershot, Alton, Basingstoke, Andover, Portsmouth, Fareham, Newport (IoW), Southampton and Lyndhurst , with Crown Courts at Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth and Newport (IoW).

Implementing Glidewell

The CJU, in Police accommodation at Portswood (Southampton), was established in August 2000 and is an interim step towards collocation. CPS staff visit the Police station to review files, and all pre-court work is carried out at the station by a mix of CPS and Police personnel, both civilian and uniformed.

Glidewell objectives/ realised benefits

i) Shorter lines of communication

• All pre-Court communication is directed to police CJU administrative staff rather than CPS office staff, saving time by referring issues directly to relevant individual, such as the Officer in charge
• A Sergeant working adjacent to CPS Lawyers during the review process ensures queries are dealt with immediately, particularly in relation to charging

ii) Minimised transport of files between Police and CPS

• Files stay within the CJU until ready for trial, and are always readily available
• Evidential file additions/supplements are passed with the file to the Lawyer at the CJU and any feedback given to the Police via the CJU

iii) Costs savings by reduction of duplications

• Not specifically costed but reduced use of memorandi through improved 'face to face' communication has led to savings
• Reduced telephone, fax and postal costs.

vi) Improved witness warning and witness care

• Greater accuracy of witness data has resulted in a reduction of the number of officers called on rest days

vii) More effective deployment of staff

· Administrative staff within the CJU are able to deal effectively with all pre-magistrates' court administration, thereby freeing up CPS resources

viii) Individuals within each organisation empowered to make day to day decisions

• Sergeants and lawyers communicate to resolve or clarify issues and make appropriate decisions without unnecessary referral

ix) Clearly defined single focus location for the Courts and other agencies

• The CJU is the recognised local focal point for defence letters and communications to the Police and CPS.

Future proposals

It is proposed to set up co-located CJUs in Police premises at Portsmouth, Southampton, Basingstoke and Aldershot within the next 8 months. A collocated combined CJU/TU has already been established in Police premises at Newport, Isle of Wight. TUs are planned in CPS premises at Portsmouth and Eastleigh. There has been broad agreement between agencies that the working of TUs needs further examination for possible placement of some Police staff within the unit.

HAMPSHIRE: ISLE OF WIGHT (IOW) COMBINED CJU/TU

To view the flow chart of 'Hampshire: Isle of Wight (IOW) combined CJU/TU' please see page 57 of the PDF version of this document.

Pre-Glidewell

The Police are structured into 15 Divisions supported by 5 CJUs at Aldershot, Basingstoke, Southampton, Portsmouth and Newport (IOW). CPS are based in 4 offices in Basingstoke, Eastleigh, Portsmouth, Newport (Isle of Wight). Magistrates' Courts are sited at Aldershot, Alton, Basingstoke, Andover, |Portsmouth, Fareham, Newport (IoW), Southampton and Lyndhurst, with Crown Courts at Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth and Newport (IoW).

Implementing Glidewell

The site, a combined CJU/TU to avoid fragmentation of the relatively small number of personnel on the IoW, was established in newly acquired Police premises in October 2000.

Glidewell objectives/ realised benefits

i) Shorter lines of communication between the Police and CPS

• All prosecution work is undertaken within the same buildings, adjacent to the magistrates' and Crown Courts.

ii) Minimised transport of files between Police and CPS

• Files stay within the unit between court appearances
• Reduced use of couriers as files can be passed from hand-to-hand
• Files easily located and tracking and search minimised
• Evidential file additions/supplements are passed to lawyers with the file

iii) Cost savings by reduction of duplications

• Major reduction in use of memo's asking for information/clarification
• More 'face to face' contact solving problems more quickly
• Reduced telephone, fax and postal costs.

iv) A single file system

vii) More effective deployment of staff

• Pre-Court actions undertaken within the CJU allows valuable continuity of effort from within one building

viii) Individuals within each organisation empowered to make day to day decisions

• Managers from both organisations within the building allows decisions to be made speedily

ix) Clearly defined single focus location for the Courts and other agencies

• Relevant agents have been informed and are aware of new arrangements and now regard the unit as the single focus for prosecution within the IoW.

Future proposals

It is proposed to set up co-located CJUs in Police premises at Portsmouth, Southampton, Basingstoke and Aldershot within the next 8 months. TUs are planned in CPS premises at Portsmouth and Eastleigh. There has been broad agreement between agencies that the working of TUs needs further examination for possible placement of some Police staff within the unit.

AVON & SOMERSET: BRISTOL AND AVON CJU/TU

To view the flow chart of 'Avon & Somerset: Bristol and Avon CJU/TU' please see page 61 of the PDF version of this document.

Pre-Glidewell

The Police are split into 8 Districts. supported by 2 major ASUs at Bristol and Taunton, plus 4 ASU Enquiry Offices at Bath, Weston Super Mare, Wells and Yeovil. The CPS is in branch offices in Bristol and Taunton. There are 11 Magistrates' Courts at Bristol, Yate, Flaxbourton, Weston Super Mare, Bath, Wells, Frome, Yeovil, Taunton, Bridgewater and Minehead. Crown Court work is mainly committed to Bristol and Taunton, with a small proportion of Somerset work committed to Exeter.

Implementing Glidewell

The CJU was established in Police accommodation in June 2000 and currently has around 41 CPS staff and over 60 Police staff. The CJU is the single focus for prosecuting magistrates' court cases in Bristol and Avon. A further collocated TU has been established at Bristol in CPS premises with around 40 CPS staff and 10 Police staff.

Glidewell objectives/ realised benefits

i) Shorter lines of communication between the Police and CPS

• Proximity of Police and CPS prosecution staff is reducing the time required to complete actions and dialogue between the Police enquiry officers and CPS has greatly improved
• Enquiries which used to take weeks are now satisfactorily resolved in minutes
• Improved communication has cut out the flow of memo's, typing, postal despatch, recording and response
• Many hours of operational Police and lawyer time has been saved

ii) Minimised transport of files between Police and CPS · File transfer now between floors in the same building, rather than between buildings

• Shared IT will allow both agencies to access joint information

iii) Cost savings by reduction of duplications

• Savings in reduced photocopying and consumables and fewer lost files
• Speedier communication prevents unnecessary work taking place
• Savings in reduced archiving for both agencies

iv) A single file system

• Single file system has led to savings, particularly on copying costs for the Police
• Concerns over simultaneous access to the file has led to the use of a 'court file' in appropriate circumstances such as remand cases where file preparation could be hindered.
• Actions on files are undertaken quicker as less time lost through transit
• Reduction in archiving costs as less files to store

v) Improved file quality and timeliness

• Files now more timely due to closer proximity between CPS and the Police within the Unit

vi) Improved witness warning and witness care

• Access to The CPS file jacket, which includes witnesses required for hearings, ensures information is speedily transferred to Police for action
• Collocation makes the use of the LWAC (List of Witnesses Required at Court) by the Police unnecessary
• Witness information is more up-to-date, allowing earlier notification of witnesses and prompt cancellation, where appropriate

vii) More effective deployment of staff

• Closer proximity of Police and CPS allows for speedy advice to be obtained by both sides
• Person-to-person communication replaces memo-to- memo which makes the prosecution system more effective
• CPS have saved administrative staff, allowing them to be deployed elsewhere on more serious casework.

viii) Individuals within each organisation empowered to make day to day decisions

• Managers for both organisations are based within the unit, with specific line management responsibility for their own staff

ix) Clearly defined single focus location for the Courts and other agencies

• The unit is the recognised single focus for the magistrates' court prosecution process in Bristol and Avon, with clear sign-posting of the CJU in the reception area and notification to all other agencies.

Future proposals

There are plans to create a further jointly managed CJU in Taunton, which will probably be a combined CJU/TU because of problems in fragmenting a comparatively small number of CPS staff.

The Halifax abbreviated Project Plan for joint-working

1. Scoping meeting between CPS and Police, project director, and key stakeholders.(January 2000)

2. Agree and document the terms of reference for the new Criminal Justice Unit. Define its purpose and objectives. Set parameters and prepare the Project brief and Plan. (February 2000)

3. Recruit Project Team members. (February 2000)

4. Map CPS administrative and Criminal Justice support workflows relating to prosecution files dealt with at the Magistrates Court. (January-April 2000)

5. In consultation with stakeholders, compare Crown Prosecution workflow against Criminal Justice support workflow and identify areas of duplication. (May 2000)

6. In consultation with stakeholders, prepare a new administrative workflow to suit a colocated CJU. (May-July 2000)

7. Agree a new joint administrative workflow. (May-July 2000)

8. Cost existing workflow at the Criminal Justice Unit in terms of staff dedicated to administration, registration, tracking, copying and filing.(May 2000)

9. Identify and document any additional tasks and reconcile with the job descriptions. Consult with Unison and staff associations, as necessary.(May 2000)

10. Assess the effect of any newly identified tasks from the new workflow on Criminal Justice Support staff workload.(May 2000)

11. Identify if any additional resources, staff or IT are required. (May 2000)

12. Identify training needs and carry out training.(May 2000)

13. Identify accommodation for CPS Lawyers.(May-July 2000)

14. Identify areas of SLA negotiated responsibility for CPS/Police/ Support Staff. (May-July 2000)

15. Go live.(October 2000)

16. Monitor. (ongoing)

17. Cost the new workflow and compare with the earlier costing.(March 2001?)

18. Review.(ongoing)

Annex 4

A SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE GLIDEWELL CALDERDALE CJU AT HALIFAX POLICE STATION

1. AIM

1.1 The aim of this local service agreement is to take forward aspects of Glidewell recommendations, for a combined Police and Crown Prosecution Service Criminal Justice Unit, within West Yorkshire.

1.2 The combined unit will be located within Halifax Police Station, Richmond Close, Halifax. It will continue to process magistrates court cases for Halifax and Calder Valley Divisions.

1.3 The unit will assume direct responsibility for all case management and preparation for the Magistrates Courts. Crown Prosecution lawyers/Designated Caseworkers from the unit will prosecute all such case.

2. STAFFING LEVELS

2.1 The Police and The CPS will continue to provide the existing staff structures currently operating within Halifax CJSU. All existing services will continue to be provided.

2.2 The Crown Prosecution Service will provide up to 6 advocates, and one Designated Caseworker. 5 Admin support staff will initially be seconded to the unit, but will be returned to central Crown Prosecution Service control after a phased training schedule of CJSU staff has been completed.

2.3 Thereafter, CJSU staff with the exception of identified and necessary CPS administrative support will provide administrative support.

3. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 The Police will undertake to provide CPS advocates with completed Early First Hearing files. These files will be available for review the day before the indicated court date, in accordance with existing protocols.

3.2 The Police will undertake to provide CPS advocates with completed Early Admin Files in accordance with established existing protocols,

3.3 File Managers will review all Early Admin Files and take appropriate action to ensure files meet standards of quality and timeliness, before review by The CPS.

3.4 Any issues arising in respect of file quality identified by CPS lawyers/Designated Caseworkers will be referred directly to file managers for appropriate remedial action.

3.5 CPS advocates undertake to review all EFH and EAH files prior to appropriate court dates.

3.6 CPS will provide a nominated court liaison officer, who will deal specifically with all aspects of court listing and internal CPS liaison. A continuum of cover for this post will be provided.

3.7 Advice in respect of file submission will be provided where appropriate by CPS lawyers/Designated Caseworkers. However, due regard for work volume will mean an appointment system will be maintained. Such appointments will be regulated via File Managers, in consultation with the prosecution team leader.

3.8 CPS advocates will assume full responsibility for all case management issues from the inception of the case to its conclusion within the Magistrates Court.

4. MANAGEMENT ISSUES

4,1 Direct line responsibility will be maintained by respective agencies for their staff. Overall the Chief Inspector, CALDERDALE CJSU, will retain senior management. for Police functions. The CPS Team leader for the unit will deal with CPS issues.

4.2 A documented and detailed procedures manual will be compiled and agreed by both parties.

5. IMPLENTATION

5.1 Implementation to commence on 2.10.00.

6. REVIEW

6.1.1 The pilot will be reviewed six months after the inception date. Performance measures will be established and will form part of a continuous monitoring system of the unit's performance. Any amendment to structure or process during the interim period can only be agreed to the signatories to this document.

7. SIGNATORIES

The signatories agree to implement the provision of this agreement.

For the West Yorkshire Police	For The Crown Prosecution Service
Name	Name
Signature	Signature
Date	Date

Responses from Operational Detectives re: CJU implementation and effects upon communication

In addition to our visits to each of the beacon Areas, a questionnaire was also issued to CJU heads at each site requesting further information on the impacts of collocation on operational detection, to amplify information already obtained by interview. The officers contacted were: .

1. Colchester Essex D Insp. T. BURDETT

2. Barnsley South Yorkshire DCI R. HAYWORTH

3. Bristol Avon & Somerset CI D. BRANFIELD / R. DAVIES

4. Newport Hampshire DI D. STEWART

5. Halifax West Yorkshire DCI I. WILSON

6. Southampton Hampshire DCI D JONES / Insp. J. WILSON

Their responses to our enquires are shown below in the same sequence as above.

Question: How often (what % of cases) was CPS face-to-face advice sought on files by detectives pre/post collocation?

Responses:

1.Pre collocation, approximately 5% of cases involved the seeking of advice from The CPS. Post collocation this has risen to about 10%. The reason for this is the increased availability of lawyers to investigators.

2.Pre collocation, very few cases would have been discussed face-to-face. Liaison is much easier post collocation, especially for Magistrates Court cases. Lawyers who have responsibility for Magistrates Court cases are more readily available and consultation is therefore taking place at a much greater rate on these cases. The Trials Unit Site is in Sheffield which is the site of the 'old' CPS branch HQ and the distance travelled by officers to that site is unchanged. We still need to improve liaison in the serious and complex cases.

3. It is very difficult to give an accurate answer to this question but for both operational and ASU detectives, on very few occasions.

4. Difficult to determine specific details, but a general feeling that the rate of CPS sought advice had at least doubled in quantity. The rate of advice has jumped from around 10 to 20 % of cases. There was a feeling that this would get better and better as liaison increased and confidence grew. The Isle of Wight CID is to centralise to Newport where their administrative support is based. This will take place soon and pool resources at Newport rather than the existing arrangement of investigators at Newport, Ryde and Shanklin.

5. Not measured at this time, though an increase would not be surprising. 6. More advice now, investigators are seeking CPS advice daily, on average two trials a week are 'saved' by communication between the Inspector in charge of the CJU and The CPS. Some communication still needs to be carried out by fax, but most is face to face.

Question: Is liaison easier pre collocation / post collocation?

Responses:

1. Liaison is considerably easier post collocation for the majority of officers and is no doubt responsible for the increase in officer/CPS liaison.

2. Easier for Magistrates Court Work, the same for Trials Unit work. We still need to improve liaison on serious and complex casework

3. Since collocation, liaison is easier for operational detectives and very much easier for the ASU detectives,.

4. Much easier after collocation. The DI cited a specific example where he had recently held a meeting with lawyers concerning a PII hearing. The meeting had been arranged immediately rather than through correspondence and had been within a very short time of being requested. The DI went on to say that, though he had never visited The CPS in their previous accommodation (due to transport etc), he had visited The CPS at the CJU on three separate occasions already (the CJU has only been open for a few weeks.)

5. Easier post-collocation and more accessible. Officers find consultation easier.

6. Easier post-collocation for the reasons of convenience and the right people doing the communication. File generation is predominantly from the uniformed staff. Out of approximately 40 files per month, the CID produces an average of 5.

Question: What is the current arrangement should such CPS liaison be sought?

Responses:

1. Access to lawyers is currently being rescheduled to provide unrestricted access through an appointments system. It is believed that this will lead to more liaison taking place as officers are aware of availability and increase the effectiveness of lawyer's time without unscheduled interruption to their working day. Another benefit of this system is that investigators will be aware of the availability of specific lawyers for individual contact. This arrangement will not be applied to senior investigators seeking consultation where existing 'open access' arrangements will continue.

2. If required, the OIC can contact the CJU and CPS unit and make an appointment to discuss their case with a lawyer. These meetings are usually arranged quickly and at short notice.

3. All that is required is a brief telephone call to ensure a lawyer is available, then we walk into the office. Liaison between Police and CPS is much enhanced.

4. Meetings are arranged following a telephone call from the investigator to the lawyer at the CJU and a mutually convenient meeting arranged.

5. Meetings with The CPS are arranged through either the DI or the DCI. This ensures CPS are not inundated with requests and that proper supervisory consideration is given to file advice/assessment before taking it to The CPS. One potential difficulty of unfettered access being that some officers may seek the advice of The CPS as a secondary advice channel after consultation with supervision, undermining the supervisory position and guidance provided.

6. Officers can attend the CJU to liaise with lawyers directly or facilitation is conducted through the CJU Inspector. Lawyers can also consult this Inspector. Actionable decisions are taken at this level on case file actions or, on occasions, discontinuance.

Question: What was the previous arrangement for CPS/ Police liaison?

Response:

1. Previous arrangements were 'ad-hoc'. Investigator's would ring The CPS Branch.

2. Similar arrangements as present. However, meeting were more difficult to arrange due to the distances involved in travelling to Sheffield which is a 40 miles round trip.

3. The previous arrangement would have involved a telephone call and making an appointment.

4. Similar arrangements as present, except that the previous meetings would have taken longer to arrange due to the distance involved.

5. Very much the same, for the same reasons.

6. Appointments had to be made to contact lawyers at CPS by the OIC, which led to a breakdown in communication, mislaid faxes etc.

Question: Has the collocated Unit bought CPS closer to operational detectives who may be seeking liaison?

Responses:

1. Yes, the Colchester CJU and the Clacton CJU have bought the investigators and CPS within those Divisions much closer together. Investigating officers from Colchester were having to travel 50 miles for consultation, whereas the CJU is now up one flight of stairs! There is a similar situation for Clacton.

2. The CJU has made it much easier for detectives to have face-to-face discussions with lawyers. They now have to walk 50 yards as opposed to driving 40 miles!

3. Because the collocated site in Bristol is within 200 yards of The CPS offices anyway, there is no difference in distance travelled. However, the anticipated collocated site in the south of the force will reduce travelling for the operational officers by 3 to 4 miles.

4. Yes, especially when the CID is collocated into the Newport office.

5. Yes, as operational detectives now work in the same building as The CPS prosecutors, ensuring close links are easily maintained.

6. Yes. Travelling distance for face-to-face contact has reduced. There are benefits for all operational officers within the district.

Question: Any other advantages for operational detectives due to collocation?

Responses:

1. Yes, the speed of the processing of the file administration is extremely beneficial to investigators who have to carry out less administration on the file themselves and can safely rely upon the effectiveness of the CJU administration. File turnaround times into and out of the CJU are reduced, working to a single file is seen as a benefit, and the implementation of Section 51 Sending Cases to the Crown Court will enable the above benefits to be utilised further in Crown Court work.

2. Having personal contact and building up trustworthy relations with individual lawyers is essential. Both parties can now discuss case strategy and understand each other's problems. This will help to build up best practice.

3. In the circumstances where the operational officer is reviewing a file with the Decision Maker, and CPS advice is required, the lawyer if available is a two minute walk to the adjoining office. Because of collocation we have been able to introduce a single file system, reducing the need for photocopying by operational officers.

4. Yes, the close proximity and availability of lawyers has meant that the investigators are more likely to seek the lawyers views early and bounce other ideas off The CPS staff while they are there. Additionally, the proximity and the trust developed with the lawyers at the CJU will enable investigators to seek advice from lawyers without having to prepare full advice files. This can reduce the process from a week down to 1/2 an hour.

5. It's too early to judge this yet as the unit has only having been operational for a number of weeks, but it is likely that the level of understanding and requirements of each side will inevitably be better understood by the other, leading to greater efficiency.

6. Where CPS lawyers do not have file ownership, any lawyer can give advice on any case (and do so) enabling enquiries to be sorted out more quickly. This is leading to a better turn-around time and improved file quality and timeliness.

Question: Any other disadvantages for operational detectives due to collocation?

Responses:

1. None.

2. The only disadvantage can be the investigation compromise. Basically, investigation decisions should be Police-manager led. On occasions managers will make decisions but OICs will consult CPS and question the decisions or indeed attempt to bypass the involvement of Police managers.

3. No disadvantages whatsoever.

4. None apparent. All the bad parts of the system have gone. This is a major step forward.. If there was one thing, it would be that the application of CPIA 1996 is easier to ignore and The CPS are going to find it easier and easier to disclose more and more to the defence than should be the case. We will put checks and balances on where we can.

5. It's too early to judge this yet as the unit has only having been operational for a number of weeks,

6. All correspondence for officers regarding files (from CPS) comes through the CJU with chase up dates marked. Urgent enquiries go to the CJU Inspector for immediate attention and liaison with the OIC if time allows. There is also an ability for officers to communicate personally by telephone or face to face with the reviewing lawyer if required. Pre collocation, the lawyer would have sent faxes directly to the OIC, which often never reached the intended recipient. Additionally, the CJU had no record of the request from CPS, as it hadn't been routed through there. All copies for additional work, advice etc, are now added to the files held at the CJU.

Question: Please provide details of the paper flow process pre- and post-collocation showing the shortening or lengthening of lines of communication for operational detectives

Response: 1.

The paper flow is relatively unchanged except that the links are now considerably shorter. Example, the cell block is in the Colchester Police station, the case papers are submitted to the CJU upstairs. The CJU carry out the admin functions including AI, entering onto the Court computer for lists, register the file and attach pre cons etc, then pass the file to The CPS for first hearing papers. The file returns from the court the same day and is either dealt with (filed, NFA) or a full file is required in which case it passes through the file adjudicator and back to the investigator with the comments of The CPS and the file adjudicator attached.

2. In view of the Narey rules and the promptness of submitting process files, communication times are now very prompt. Barnsley has very good JPM figures in relation to the rest of the South Yorkshire Police. I can only comment, due to my recent arrival, on the paper flow system post collocation.

Prior to collocation The CPS branch base was at 'Greenfield House' in Sheffield which is some 40 miles round trip for officers. If the Trials Unit is based at this site, that distance will still be a factor in Trials Unit case work, (though officers will not be disadvantaged, they will be in the same position for this tranche of work that they were in before.) Papers are submitted from the OIC to the CJU, they are registered and entered onto the Court computer in alphabetical order. The CPS are provided with the file as soon as it is ready, and in any event, at least the day before the Court. The Court running lists are as per the Police entries. The Police ensure the files are at Court and ensure their return after each Court. Files requiring upgrades are routed back to the case officers via The CPS lawyer and Police file manager, for further action. Upon completion of enquiries the files are returned to the CJU where the case papers are assembled and typing, ROTIs, pre cons etc are prepared. Files resulted from Court are returned via the Police for finalisation.

3. There is no difference in our paper flow post-collocation except that the lines of communication are much shorter. The introduction of the single file system has bought with it savings estimated at £20,000 per year.

4. Files of evidence go from the investigator at whichever station the file is prepared, to the CJU, then to a file manager, then onto The CPS on a daily basis for prosecution at Court. There is a single file system in place and this reduces the amount of admin that needs to be carried out. The single files are placed in 'pigeon holes' for collection. In the case of file upgrades, the advantage now is that all of the papers for a particular case are in the same place i.e. the CJU, and the additions to the case file are easily attached to the file. This process was obviously more fragmented when the investigators were at more outlying stations e.g. Ryde, which is 20 minutes away and when single file systems were not in use. Apart from those increases and centralisation with The CPS, the previous paper flow was similar.

5. The same paper flow process as pre collocation, but the process is much quicker due to the removal of distance barriers between the Police investigator and The CPS. Halifax Police station and cell block is down the stairs from the new CJU. Halifax Magistrates Court is in Town. Pre-collocation the distance to The CPS branch was significantly greater than at present. CPS couriers are bought the files back from Court on the same day. Since the 2nd October 2000, all files have been single files except PYO files, which are still duel files. Benefits include remand files being jacketed in CPS jackets before the hearing and advanced information always promptly attached to the file.In addition, outstanding warrants and breaches are checked to ensure the full background was available in Court which is seen as a major advantage.

6. Nareywell took over Narey files in the magistrates' court where the file comes from and return to the ASU. If the file has to go to the Crown, it goes to The CPS. If it stays in the magistrates' court, it stays in the ASU. The ASU currently produces an extra copy of the charge sheet for The CPS to register the case. This is a duplicate registration process. The lawyer reviews the file at the ASU, and administrative support is done at the ASU. The police who put the file back into court for 'next' hearings do all other administration. The police hold the case

until the file goes to the Crown Court. Full files are produced within the ASU while the officer in the case will gather any evidence. A CPS lawyer comes in on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday to review full files. Discussion is usually around the need to improve the quality of the file or to continue with the file as it is.

Mid-pilot review of Barnsley CJU

To date, only one Area (Barnsley) has undertaken a mid-pilot review of their joint processes in line with the Glidewell 9. Indications are that benefits are achievable under each of the headings of the Glidewell 9 key objectives, which are shown at annex X.

1) Shorter Lines of communication between the Police and CPS

• Increased face-to-face communication;
• Fewer letters and minutes (based on a Police snapshot analysis July 99 - July 2000);
• Fewer telephone calls (from Police information);
• Improved operational consultancy (as lawyers are available for on-Area advice);
• Reduced delay in communications reaching their destination;
• Fewer advice cases;
• Fewer telephone advices;

2) Transporting Files between The CPS reduced to a minimum

• As location is shared, file travel is limited, although committal files still travel from Sheffield to Barnsley and back;
• The Single File system is owned and tracked by the Police, therefore there are fewer files in the system and reduced numbers of duel files;

3) Duplication Savings for both organisations (too soon to precisely quantify)

Post sorting is reduced, as is;

• File allocation;
• Typing;
• Quality checking of full files;
• Archiving;
• IT systems. There is no CPS case tracking presently done on live files;
• ·Photocopying reduced for both Police & CPS;
• Travel costs/T & S costs/future savings to be made;
• Travel time reduced - more time spent in the office (lawyers & support).

4) A Single file System to Improve Cost efficiency

• In place, reducing copying costs, and;
• Costs of paper;
• Costs of staff time for the Police;
• Use of stationery items e.g. paper clips, star binders, treasury tags, copies memorandums etc. (Police);
• Storage costs reduced for CPS for both live and archived files, with fewer files in storage.

5) Improved file quality and timeliness for both organisations

• Pls, JPMS, CPMs and other statistics (such as the first time disposal rate) will require further examination.

6) Improved Witness Warning, Witness Care and Victim Support

• The speed of LWACs to Police Witness Liaison Officers has improved;
• Transportation time is saved;
• Witness difficulties can be acted upon immediately by localised liaison;
• Improved "Speed of Justice" because the decision making process is speeded up and there are reduced delays in court.

7) More effective deployment of staff

• CPS are able to re-deploy A2 caseworkers to Committals Unit because of Police court prep;
• Increased court liaison;
• ·Savings on travel time for lawyers and administrative staff;
• More time being spent in the office, leading to more effective deployment.

8) Individuals within Both Organisations Empowered to Make Key Day-to-Day Decisions

• Police and CPS local managers have been given appropriate authority to make day to day decisions;
• Local working group has been set up to look at communication protocol;
• Regular (daily/weekly) meetings are held to discuss issues of concern;
• Briefing notes and bulletins are available produced by both Team Leaders for both organisations and circulated to all staff.

9) Clearly Defined Single Location for the Courts and Other Agencies to Contact

• Single location, as defined above;
• In relation to contact points, the correspondence address for The CPS has been retained as Greenfield House for reasons of safety and security as required by South Yorkshire Police, but systems are in place to ensure effective and efficient turn-round of correspondence. (for example, telephone numbers at the CJU in Barnsley have been made available to the Defence).

Process Mapping

Mapping your existing process is the essential first step to planning new processes under joint working. You will find it difficult to decide where you are going to go if you do not know exactly where you are at present.

Process mapping need not be over complex and to assist Areas, the Working Group have constructed a simple before-and-after process map for Glidewell practices and processes, broadly based on a simple process map produced by Avon and Somerset.

If further detail is required, the team hold copies of more complex charts produced within pilot Areas, particularly the Halifax chart which takes the prosecution process from pre-investigation advice to the Court of Appeal. Size precludes inclusion of this chart within this report, but electronic copies can be obtained from the team at the addresses shown in Annex 9.

Pre-Collocated CJU Administrative Processes

Collocated CJU Administrative Processes

Terms of Reference

The project teams terms of reference were:

1) To identify the systems and procedures that have been put in place in early collocated located "beacon" Areas at Bristol, Barnsley, Colchester, Halifax and the Isle of Wight, with an additional visit to Portswood to examine an advanced "Narey/Glidewell" Area;

2) To identify any Service Level Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding between the two agencies;

3) To identify how local arrangements for collocation have met the nine key objectives identified in the Model for Joint Administration. 4) To research and identify points of particular success, problems arising, "rubbing points" and any solutions that were identified.

5) To rationalise costs if available (albeit anticipated) where savings can be made to both agencies.

6) To identify how the collocated unit is managed and supervised on a day to day basis.

7) To process map a case file from the point of charge through to case finalisation, with particular reference to the administration process.

Secretariat Membership

D/Superintendent Haycock, Trials Issues Group (Chairman) Steve Przybylski, CPS David Evans, Trials Issues Group Superintendent Peter Hall, Kent Police

Working Group Membership

Inspector Peter Hall, Trials Issues Group Chief Inspector Peter West, Kent Police Tim Ewen Head of the Criminal Justice Unit West Yorkshire Police Ken Caley, CPS West Midlands Robert Stevenson Area Business Manager, CPS West Yorkshire Paul Martin, CPS, Management Audit Services James Fraser CPS, Management Audit Services

Annex 10

Glidewell Evaluation Project – Contact List

Graham Haycock Tel: 0207-796-8130

Fax: 0207-796-8650

Mobile: 046-898-0715

e-mail devans.policy@cps.gov.uk

Steve Przybylski Tel: 0207-796-8072

Fax: 0207-796-8368

e-mail property@cps.gov.uk

Robert Stevenson Tel: 0113-290-2841

Fax: 0113-290-2707

e-mail robertstevenson@waitrose.com

Tim Ewen Tel: 01924-292-062

Fax: 01924-292-160

Mobile: 0774-700-6212

e-mailTE43@wetyorkshire.pnn.police.uk

David Evans Tel: 0207-796-8083

Fax: 0207-796-8650

Mobile: 0585-517-251

e-mail devans.policy@cps.gov.uk

Peter Hall (TIG) Tel: 0207-796-8083

Fax: 0207-796-8650

Mobile: 07773-367-193

e-mail devans.policy@cps.gov.uk

hallpeter@hallpa.fsnet.co.uk

Paul Martin Tel: 01904-545-599

Fax: 01904-545-606

Mobile: 07901-856-259

e-mail: paul.martin@amserve.net

paulmartin.mas@cps.gov.uk

James Fraser Tel: 0207-796-8424

Fax: 0207-796-8368

Mobile: 07901-856257

jamesfraser.mas@cps.gov.uk

Peter Hall (Kent) Tel: 01732-370-700

Fax: 101732-370-729

Mobile: 07980-683-196

e-mail peter.hall16@virgin.net

Peter West Pager: 07693-607-019

Mobile: 07802-356-857

e-mail: peterpauline@westp.fsnet.co.uk

Nicky Boyce Tel: 0207-796-8721 Ken Caley Tel: 02476-508-400

Fax 0207-796-8368 Fax: 02476-8-8-444

e-mail: property@cps.gov.uk

Names of principal interviewees

Portswood & IOW

Inspector Paul Bright – Head of Criminal Justice Unit Mark Sunderland – Area Business Manager

Barnsley

Chris Day – Area Business Manager Chief Inspector Andy Christian – Head of Criminal Justice Unit

Avon & Somerset

Martin Richards– Assistant Chief Constable Chief Inspector David Branfield – Head of Criminal Justice Unit John Drew OBE - Branch Crown Prosecutor

Halifax

Tim Ewen – Head of Criminal Justice Unit Robert Stevenson – Area Business Manager

Essex

Paula Abrahams – Prosecution Team Leader Barbara Holmes – Criminal Administration Manager

Our thanks also to the numerous caseworkers and administrative staff who assisted.