Business Plan 2015 to 2016

Transcription

1 Business Plan 2015 to 2016

2 CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION BUSINESS PLAN 2015/16 Introduction This business plan sets out the Commission s plans for the coming financial year It reflects the statutory framework in which we operate and the challenging financial environment. This is the first business plan of the planning cycle. It takes the main aims of the Corporate Plan and translates those into a small number of focused objectives. This is to reflect both the stringent financial position and the fact that we continued to see in the last three years, and anticipate it will remain the case for the coming three years, a very high level of new cases coming to us. Over the last three years, intake rose by approximately 50%. This has become our new norm. We set ourselves the challenge in the last business year to do all that we could to stop queues from growing and to try to reverse that. We introduced some new and innovative ways of working to ensure that applicants continue to get the best possible level of service from us and that they do so in a timely fashion. We are pleased to report that we are starting to see performance improvements. However, we are conscious that if we are to see the end to our queues, that we will have to seek to identify further new ways of working in the coming year. The Commission approach The Criminal Case Review Commission is the independent statutory body established as an Executive Non-Departmental Body on 1st January 1997 by the Criminal Appeal Act We are independent, and investigate alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We took over responsibility for reviewing possible miscarriages of justice from the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office on 31st March We are sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. Since we started operating, we have so far reviewed over 17,565 cases and referred more than 577 for appeal. The majority of those referrals were in relation to the most serious crimes. The overwhelming majority of applications we deal with are of the most serious type such as murder, rape, terrorism, drugs and robbery. Further information on how the Commission works and our previous performance can be found in our Annual Reports and on our web pages at The Commission The Commission is located in Birmingham and employs 81 staff. We currently have twelve Commissioners in post (8.1 full-time equivalent), including the Chair, 1

3 all of whom are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The Commission has three Non-Executive Directors. Executive management of the Commission is entrusted to the Chief Executive and two directors. This business plan sets out the way in which the Commission will deliver its strategic objectives. Delivery of the objectives is monitored by the executive team, overseen by the Board. Casework investigation is carried out by casework staff comprising 36 case review managers and four group leaders, supported by an assistant case review manager, casework administration staff, a Legal Adviser, an Investigations Adviser and an Investigator. The casework process has been designed to ensure the highest standards and consistency in the conduct of reviews. Partnership The Commission has wide ranging powers to require information from public bodies. This means that during the course of reviewing a case we may have contact with organisations such as the Crown Prosecution Service, local authorities, health bodies, the police and security services, the courts and forensic science providers. In the course of a review the Commission may also instruct specialist investigators or seek advice from a range of experts and we may appoint the police to conduct investigations on our behalf, under section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act The Commission has a constructive working relationship with the Court of Appeal and, under section 15 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, is asked to carry out investigations on the Court s behalf. The Commission is represented by the Chief Executive on the Court of Appeal Criminal Division User Group and at the Criminal Justice Council. The Commission actively engages with a wide range of stakeholders from the miscarriages of justice arena. The Commission plays an important role as a vital safeguard in the criminal justice system. We have an active Research Committee which includes members from academia. We work with a wide range of organisations and public bodies, including our applicants and their representatives. Given the scope of what we do, the Commission is uniquely placed to comment on all aspects of the criminal justice system and can offer unparalleled insight into the causes of wrongful convictions as well as into the ingredients which make for safe, successful convictions. We work to promote public understanding of our role and to raise informed awareness about the Commission with specific groups such as potential applicants, campaigners, the judiciary and the legal profession. We have made specific efforts to engage with innocence projects and other university-based pro bono projects concerned with wrongful convictions and aiming to make applications to the Commission. We run an advice line so that pro bono units can benefit from advice provided by casework staff. We have gone out to police forces and fed back our findings and providing training. 2

4 In November 2014 we repeated our very successful stakeholder conference which attracted excellent speakers led by key note speaker, Lord Justice Treacy, and panellists and a wide range of attendees. We are particularly keen that we provide a high quality service to victims of crime (and their families) who may be affected by our work and that we understand how our work may impact on them. As part of this, we engage with and seek the advice of, the Victims Commissioner about how we might provide such a service. Key activities and priorities We are very clear that our priority for this year is to reduce the waiting times for applicants whilst ensuring the quality of our casework. Our three year corporate strategy revolves around that; it also feeds into a Ministry of Justice priority of assuring better law by feeding our findings back into the criminal justice system and by contributing to the criminal justice debate. The Corporate Plan for identifies four strategic objectives through which the overall aims will be realised. These are: Eliminating queues whilst maintaining quality: by determinedly prioritising casework, proactively reviewing our ways of working and setting ourselves stretching and ambitious targets to ensure that the applicant remains central to what we do. Increasing public confidence in us and in the wider CJS: by engaging more with stakeholders on what we do and on our priorities, by listening to what stakeholders have to say to us and by engaging more publically with the CJS on issues which concern us. Ensuring the most effective use of public money: by living within means and ensuring that any impact on the work we do is minimised by constantly looking for more creative ways of working. Delivering a professional and accountable service to applicants and the wider CJS: by developing our staff, Commissioners and the organisation by providing support, mentoring and training and by agreeing stretching and realistic individual and organisational targets. This business plan supports those strategic objectives. Our Performance in We continue to see a sustained high level of new cases and we have taken innovative steps to address this as set out in the casework performance section below. More generally, the Commission achieved a number of successes during what proved to be a very challenging year. These include a much higher profile for the Commission culminating in our bi-annual stakeholder conference in November 2014, increased engagement with practitioners, a refined and targeted approach to prison surgeries which, combined with an updated EasyRead application form is encouraging those applicants who haven t appealed to consider whether or not 3

5 to apply to us, and the launch of a sophisticated intranet to help manage our casework knowledge. During 2012/13 the Ministry of Justice carried out a triennial review of our work. This was a part of the triennial review programme overseen by the Cabinet Office. The review, which we passed with flying colours, endorsed what we do and how we do it. It recommended re-visiting the Commission s governance arrangements and in May 2014 we decided to alter the governance structure for a trial period until the end of 2014/15. The changes included introducing a smaller Board and rebalancing its membership. After the trial period, the Commission decided to revert to the larger form where all Commissioners are Board members along with the non-executive directors and the members of the senior management team. In addition to taking part in a triennial review, we have also appeared before the Justice Select Committee. The Committee held a full inquiry into the Commission during 2014/15, following a one-off evidence session held in January We welcome their findings including that the Commission was functioning reasonably well and that what we do remains as important and necessary as ever. We are also pleased to have the Committee s support for increased funding and for an extension to our powers so that we can require private bodies to disclosure documents relevant to our enquiries. Casework performance Our case intake remains consistently high, being about 50% higher than before we introduced the Easy Read application form. Our challenge has been to deal with that sustained increase in cases, to reduce the time taken from application to allocation and to increase the efficiency of our review and decision making processes whilst maintaining the quality of our work. We have continued to strive to make changes to help us to do that. Many of the steps that we have adopted this year are incremental in effect and ongoing. We have, however, made some major changes in 2014/15 involving the movement of work from Commissioners to case review managers. That has led to significant transformational change with pace and focus. In early 2014, we commenced a blitz of the Type 1 cases (cases where an applicant has not raised anything new and there are no investigative steps that we can reasonably take) to reduce the number of applicants waiting for their cases to be reviewed. Following that, we are seeking to maintain waiting time to allocation for Type 1 cases to a minimum. This has increased allocations and turnover of Type 1 cases. In the autumn of 2014, we reduced the significant administrative burden of issuing a final decision document to applicants where we have received no further submissions in response to our provisional decision document. Further representations are invited, but if none are received we will close the case without further correspondence. From early 2015, we have taken this a step further in No Appeal cases which are rejected at Stage 1 of our processes as having demonstrated no exceptional circumstances justifying a referral despite the absence of a prior appeal. In these cases, no further submissions will be invited and the initial decision will be the final decision from the outset. This will provide for further efficiency gains. 4

6 We also (from autumn 2014) changed our focus when dealing with No Appeal cases, using a faster and more succinct process engaging staff rather than Commissioners for the bulk of the work, concentrating much more tightly on the question of exceptional circumstances that might justify our involvement in the case. Those few cases that do give rise to exceptional circumstances will continue to receive a full review. We are continuing to see very positive results, such as freeing up Commissioner time for advising on complex cases during the course of the review and for decision making, reserving our resources for those applicants who have already used, or cannot reasonably use, the appeals system, reduction of the amount of money that we spend on transcripts, improved consistency of decision making and increasing case closures. Financial performance The budget received by the Commission for 2014/15 recognised the significant growth in new applications received and allowed us to retain some of the additional fixed term case working staff recruited to deal with the growing workload. The initial resource DEL for 2014/15 was 5.12m and this was increased to 5.25m during the year in recognition of additional non-recurrent pay costs including the modernisation of pay scales in line with Treasury requirements. The outlook for funding for 2015/16 remains extremely challenging. All areas of expenditure are regularly reviewed, and we continue to look for ways to improve efficiency across the Commission by streamlining processes. We have experienced several years of real term cuts in funding, and are now at the stage where further cuts would seriously damage our casework capacity and impact our financial resilience. We are, therefore, pleased to report that our budget for this plan period has been confirmed as a stand-still budget rather than a cut. The confirmation of our budget means that we will be able to provide contract security to skilled members of casework and support staff on whom the Commission depends to maintain its casework capacity. Key Risks The Commission takes risk seriously and regularly reviews risk through its Audit & Risk Committee chaired by a non-executive director. In addition, the Ministry of Justice carries out an annual risk analysis which is shared with the Commission. We consider our major risks to be funding and the queue of applicants waiting for their cases to be reviewed. Although we secured additional funding for 2013/14 and 2014/15, which has been retained for 2015/16, this does follow a long period of real terms cuts in budget. It is vital that the Commission continues to receive additional funding going forward to ensure that we can deal with the significant increase in the rate of applications seen over recent years. In respect of queues, we continue to find new ways of working to ensure that we can get to our applicants as quickly as possibly whilst ensuing that the quality of what we do is maintained. 5

7 Balanced Scorecard A balanced scorecard is a tool used for business planning which divides targets and priorities into sections which have equal importance. These four sections are headed Finance and Resources; Stakeholders; Casework and Internal Processes; and Learning and Growth. By focusing on each section equally, the balanced scorecard helps provide a comprehensive view of our business, which in turn helps us to act in the best longterm interests of the Commission. For example it would be very easy to just focus on financial or numerical targets in the coming year but if savings are at the expense of the quality of what we do, or future learning and growth, the Commission will risk compromising its vision in the medium to long term. STAKEHOLDERS This section defines who stakeholders are and what the priorities are for them CASEWORK & INTERNAL PROCESSES This section is about the way the Commission works and includes our KPIs for casework FINANCE & RESOURCES This section sets out the budget and financial targets for the coming year LEARNING AND GROWTH This section is about staff and the culture of the organisation 6

8 STAKEHOLDERS Increasing public confidence in us and in the wider CJS: by engaging more with stakeholders on what we do and on our priorities, by listening to what stakeholders have to say to us and by engaging more publically with the CJS on issues which concern us. (Corporate Plan ) S1 Objective Target Owner Maintain and develop Continued and regular contact and Chief Executive effective working feedback to and from the CACD relationships with Court of via the Registrar. Appeal Criminal Division. Member of CACD User Group. S2 To improve access to our services from hard to reach groups. Identify and where possible address issues faced by hard to reach groups in accessing our services with a particular focus on underrepresented groups such as prisoners in Northern Ireland and young offenders. Customer Service Manager S3 To identify and influence key stakeholders improving knowledge and understanding of the Commission. Launch the new CCRC website to improve access to information and to develop our online offering for applicants and those affected by, or interested in, or work. Head of Communications Launch the Commission on Twitter. We will seek to monitor the impact of that and to increase our number of followers over the year. Head of Communications Provide regional casework training workshops in 2015/16 for university-based and other pro bono appeal organisations. Head of Communications Produce specific material for young people informing them (and others) about the role of the Commission. Head of Communications S4 Work with the MoJ to maintain relationship which reflects the changing environment at the MoJ. Develop and maintain good working relationships with the sponsor team and MoJ more generally through liaison meetings, role shadowing, learning sessions and proactive dialogue. Chief Executive 7

9 CASEWORK AND INTERNAL PROCESSES Eliminating queues whilst maintaining quality: by determinedly prioritising casework, proactively reviewing our ways of working and setting ourselves stretching and ambitious targets to ensure that the applicant remains central to what we do. (Corporate Plan ) P1 Objective Target Owner To reduce waiting times further whilst maintaining quality. In view of the continuing increased intake, to continue to refine our business processes to achieve a maximum waiting time (to allocation for review) for those in custody to 6 months and those at liberty to 19 months in the first year of the Corporate Plan. Casework Operations P2 To encourage eligible well prepared applications and discourage ineligible applications by ensuring that potential applicants and practitioners understand the role of the Commission. Continued engagement with practitioners and relevant universities through various mediums. Liaison with regional solicitors to encourage prison surgery schemes. Casework Operations Casework Operations P3 Enhance our compliance with the spirit of the Victims Code. Training event for all staff and Commissioners Casework Operations Liaise with the Victim Commissioner s Office in respect of potential improvements Casework Operations Create a specific section on our website Head of Communications 8

10 FINANCE & RESOURCES Ensuring the most effective use of public money: by living within means and ensuring that any impact on the work we do is minimised by constantly looking for more creative ways of working. (Corporate Plan ) F1 Objective Target Owner IT team, systems and processes IT service delivered consistently in which support the work of the accordance with the internal service Finance & Commission by providing a level agreement Corporate proactive and reliable service. Services F2 F3 Engage proactively with our sponsor team to ensure an appropriate budget settlement. Maintain an effective framework for control over expenditure. Implementation of the reclassification of CCRC network to Impact Level 3 from Level 4. Deliver full data migration for the Assure project as part of the second phase implementation Quarterly meetings with MoJ and effective reporting of activity/progress to MoJ. Monthly monitoring of budgets; overall fiscal DEL and capital DEL to ensure spending within budget Review process documentation. Finance & Corporate Services Chief Executive Finance & Corporate Services Finance & Corporate Services Assess current security measures to ensure the cost and process benefits of a move to Level 3 are delivered. Finance & Corporate Services 9

11 LEARNING AND GROWTH Delivering a professional and accountable service to applicants and the wider CJS: by developing our staff, Commissioners and the organisation by providing support, mentoring and training and by agreeing stretching and realistic individual and organisational targets. (Corporate Plan ) L1 Objective Target Owner Continue to develop Increase the use of Civil Service Learning by HR improved culture and 10% including the allocation of a one day Manager staff morale training day. Implement actions following staff engagement survey and focus groups. HR Manager L2 To continue to increase our use of constructive feedback across the organisation to support a learning culture Use Knowledge Cafes and other internal training events to share lessons learned across all business functions. Casework Operations L3 L4 Review recruitment processes to improve access to potential employees, and reduce the time taken to appoint staff. Ensure Information Processes are fully supporting business functions. Develop improved links with recruitment agents; review use made of CS Jobs and review induction process to ensure relevant. Review all processes from time of decision (including authority to recruit) to recruit to start date with the Commission. Review all information and assurance policies following implementation of the new Government Classification System to ensure smooth operation. HR Manager HR Manager Finance & Corporate Services Review of security vetting for posts in line with new Impact Level. HR Manager 10

12 Key Performance Indicators Waiting times 1 Average time from receipt to allocation This KPI records the average time taken for an application to be allocated to a CRM for review, and gives an indication of how long applicants wait before their case is started. The time from the date of receipt of the application to the date of allocation to a CRM for review, averaged for all applications in the reporting period for which a CRM allocation date has been recorded. Re-allocations are ignored. Recorded for each month and the rolling 12 month period, calculated separately for at liberty and in custody cases. Monthly Case statistics compiled from the case management system Duration of review 2A Time to decision from allocation This KPI records the average time taken for an application to be reviewed from the point of allocation. The time from the date of allocation of the application to the issue of an initial decision, averaged for all applications in the reporting period for which an initial decision has been issued. Recorded for review cases for each month and the rolling 12 month period Monthly Case statistics compiled from the case management system Duration of review 2B Time to decision from application This KPI records the average time taken for an application to be reviewed from the point of application. The time from the date of application to the issuing of the final decision. Recorded for each month and the rolling 12 month period, calculated separately for each Type of review case and no appeal cases. Monthly Case statistics compiled from the case management system Average time to allocation: At liberty cases <78 weeks In custody cases <26 weeks Average duration of review <28 weeks Average duration of review: Liberty <88 weeks Custody <56 weeks No appeal/re-apps/ineligibles <15 weeks Caseflow balance 3 Caseflow balance A high-level measure to show the effect of the increase in applications on our queues. The greater the imbalance between intake and case closures the longer waiting times will become. We assume intake will remain The total number of cases closed at all stages minus the number of applications received. Applications include s15 directions from the Court of Appeal. Recorded for each month and the rolling 12 month period Quality 4 Complaints and judicial reviews The number of complaints and judicial reviews serves as a measure of the quality of service provided. 1 The number of cases re-opened as a proportion of complaints and pre-action protocol letters resolved and judicial reviews heard. 2 The number of complaints otherwise upheld as a proportion of complaints resolved Recorded for the current period and for the last 12 months. Quality 5 Quality assurance A measure of the quality of review work as measured by the Commission's own quality assurance systems. The number of cases examined in the QA sample for which additional work is undertaken, expressed as a percentage of all cases examined. Quarterly and for the last 12 months. Monthly Case statistics compiled from the case management system Quarterly Records of official complaints maintained by the Customer Service Manager and of judicial reviews maintained by the Legal Advisors. Quarterly QA system records. Monthly: >0 12mnth: >0 Number 1 Cases reopened <3 and <4% 2 Other <7 and <9½% Number Cases requiring further work <4% 11

13 Casework outcomes 6 Time to notification of referral This KPI records the average time taken to notify the court and applicant of a referral from the point of agreement to refer. The time from the date of the committee agreement to refer to the point when the court and applicant are notified of the referral by sending the Statement of Reasons. Human capital 7 Staff absence The extent to which staff and Commissioners are absent affects the productivity of the Commission and its ability to meet its casework targets. The aggregate number of days of employee and Commissioner absence through sickness, divided by the full time equivalent number of employees and Commissioners. Finance 8 Expenditure against budget A key indicator of financial management is the extent to which expenditure in the period is aligned to the delegated budget, with neither overspends nor significant underspends. Total expenditure less delegated budget, measured separately for resource and capital, expressed as a % of budget. Recorded for the 12 months to date and cumulative. Recorded for the current period and for the year to date Forecast for the year. Quarterly Case statistics compiled from the case management system Monthly Internally generated data based on personnel records. Monthly Management accounts <2 months in 90% of cases Sickness absence: <7½ days per annum Resource 0% and -2½% 12

14 Budget Business plan [ k] 2015/ /15 Pay costs 4,380 4,453 Non-pay costs: Estate costs IT & telecommunications Printing, postage & office Staff travel Other External Case Related Expenditure Income (22) (34) Fiscal DEL 5,178 5,178 Pay progression buy-out - 58 Additional Funding ,178 5,304 Non-cash: depreciation pensions (179) (179) Total Resource DEL 5,123 5,249 AME Capital DEL (no Budget agreed for 2015/16) TOTAL 5,632 5,890 13

15 12. Organogram 1 Richard Foster Chair x 0.6 PA x 0.81 Commissioners x 7.4 Non-Executive Director x 3 Chief Executive x 1 I Head of Communications x 1 Customer Service Manager x 0.89 P.A x 1 Finance & Corporate Services x 1 Systems Manager x 1.00 Support Analysts x 2.00 IT Administrator 1.00 Project Manager 0.41 Finance Manager x 0.99 HR Manager x 1.00 HR Officer x 0.8 Administrators x 3 Apprentice x 1.00 Casework Operations x 1 Advisers x 1.81 Investigator x 1 Group Leaders x 3.81 Case Review Managers x Knowledge Manager x 0.73 Assistant Case Review Managers x 1 Casework Operations Manager x 0.89 Administrators x Admin Assistants x 0.92 Criminal Cases Review Commission, 5 St Philip s Place, Birmingham B3 2PW. DX Birmingham 41 e: info@ccrc.gov.uk t: f: w: 1 Data in respect of Commissioners and staff in full time equivalents. 14