compass cms - criminal justice inspectorates · report on the review of the use of the case...

REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE USE OF THE

CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE CPS

NOVEMBER 2006

COMPASS CMS

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

The use of the case management system in the CPS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1The purpose of the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Other reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Background and context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2 Summary of findings and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Review and decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Case management and progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Change management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Business development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11The focus of the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Evidence gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Structure of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

4 Has adopting Compass CMS contributed to improvements in review anddecision-making? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Process changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Recording decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Access to electronic information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Assessment of review and decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

5 Has CMS led to improved case handling and progression across the variousstructures and roles within the CPS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Structures and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Task llists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Case progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Witness care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Time saving and efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Barriers to using CMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24


6 Has the approach to change management been effective in integrating Compass CMS into area core business? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Preparation of Areas by Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Training and support provided by Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26New releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Customer Relationship Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Service Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Monitoring and managing usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Locally provided training and support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

7 Does Compass CMS sustain continuous development of CPS business? . . . . . . . . . . .35Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Implementing legislative change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36CPS/CJS initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Implementing new releases of CMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Management information to support improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Managing processes and structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Annexes

A The inspection framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

B Questionnaire Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

C Issues requiring ongoing management attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

D Summary of Findings from File Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

E Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72


1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the review1.1 This is the report on Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s (HMCPSI)

thematic review of the use of the case management system (Compass CMS) in the CrownProsecution Service (CPS).

1.2 Compass CMS was rolled-out nationally in 2003 following earlier pilots.The system is used bya very high proportion of CPS staff, with approximately 7,700 users. It therefore has afundamental impact on the business and plays an important role in service delivery. It is,however, a long term project, and as such there are issues that will not be covered in greatdepth in this inspection as they are future developments.These are likely to be the subject ofinspection at a later date.The primary purpose of this inspection focused on:

Has the use of Compass CMS improved the quality and timeliness of CPS casework?

1.3 This inspection concentrated on progress and delivery to date, but one of our themes lookedat the role of the system in enabling continuous improvement for the future.

1.4 There have been a number of reviews of CMS-related issues conducted in recent times by avariety of groups.Whilst we would clearly not wish to duplicate the work that has beencarried out already, there is the obvious advantage of HMCPSI being able to conduct a moreindependent evaluation and deploy the resources necessary to facilitate an in-depth analysis ofsome operational ‘day-to-day’ issues.

1.5 As the Compass CMS system has now had time to ‘bed-in’ and normalise, the purpose of thisthematic was to determine the current position with regard to the impact of the system on thequality and timeliness of casework. Further details on the scope are included in paragraph 3.4.

1.6 This review is not intended to be a detailed evaluation of the technical design of CMSalthough we do make comment on particular aspects of functionality that evidence indicatesas particular strengths or weaknesses of the system.The scope of the assessment includesaspects of value and efficiency in relation to specific work roles and related processes;however, it does not extend to an assessment of the value of the overall contract and project.Work is ongoing in establishing links to other criminal justice system (CJS) IT systems and assuch some interfaces have not been examined in great detail during this inspection.

Other reviews1.7 Since its inception Compass CMS has been subject to ongoing review and scrutiny including a

joint review between the CPS and the Departmental Trade Union side (DTUS), LogicaCMGbusiness reviews conducted separately from the project structure and the Office ofGovernment Commerce (OGC) business benefits delivery review.

1


1.8 The CPS and DTUS review was undertaken in March 2004 following concerns from staffabout the functionality and operation of the Compass CMS system.The review interviewedapproximately 100 staff in four CPS Areas and 395 staff were polled by way of questionnaire,of whom 185 responded. A LogicaCMG study review was completed in August 2005 andinvestigated the benefits accruing from investment in the Compass infrastructure.The OGChave undertaken a number of reviews, the latest of which was the Gateway 5 review inAugust 2005 which focussed on internal benefits delivery and required the CPS todemonstrate the practical impacts that technology is having on day-to-day business.Compass CMS was rated as Green.This was considered to be an important accolade as only24 Government IT programmes had been able to reach this OGC Gateway with just sixachieving a Green rating.

1.9 An external examination (Gartner Review) was carried out to assess ‘value for money’ aspectsof the contract between LogicaCMG and the CPS.The review was generally positive.

1.10 HMCPSI completed a Thematic Inspection Report on The Use of Performance Information inthe Crown Prosecution Service in July 2005 (published that September) and some aspects of thework examined information management system functions of Compass CMS.

1.11 This open approach to external scrutiny and review is to be welcomed.

Background and context1.12 Compass CMS/MIS is the CPS national case management system and management

information system.The contract for the development and management of Compass CMSwas the subject of a tender process and was subsequently awarded to LogicaCMG.The system brings integrated automated support to both administrative and prosecutorialfunctions presenting significant challenges to professional work practices. It was piloted inthree Areas in 2002 and rolled-out to all CPS offices in 2003; the system is regularly revisedand since 2003 there have been two formal updates per year. Compass CMS represents theCPS contribution to the CJS Exchange which will facilitate case transfer and automatic casestatus updating once allied case management systems are implemented in related agencies(the courts and police).

1.13 In 2005 the CPS developed the Witness Management System (WMS) to help supportWitness Care Units introduced as part of the No Witness, No Justice (NWNJ) initiative.This was carried out on behalf of the Criminal Justice IT group as a multi-agency project.The availability of the national CMS system was a key factor in the decision to use the CPSand LogicaCMG to develop WMS.

1.14 Implementing national IT systems has not been a strength in the public sector, and it is to thecredit of the CPS and LogicaCMG that they delivered the initial project on time and withinbudget. Some difficult decisions, and a few compromises, had to be taken to achieve this, but itwas done in a controlled way with the risks managed.

2


1.15 It was always accepted that the environment in which the CPS operates would lead to a needfor constant development, and this was taken into account when releasing the original versionof CMS, which was somewhat basic.There is a systematic approach to implementingimprovements, with two new releases each year.There has been a considerable amount oflegislative change over the past three years necessitating some un-envisaged changes.

1.16 Much of the funding for CMS is external and comes via the Criminal Justice InformationTechnology (CJIT) group, and this can put some constraints on what can be afforded in termsof development activity. For the most part the CPS have been supported well in fundingterms, but there is still some uncertainty about future finances.The contract was let underPrivate Finance Initiative (PFI) arrangements and was originally valued at £240 million over tenyears.This has grown to over £400 million, primarily because of the need to react to newlegislation and to work towards joined-up IT within all the criminal justice agencies.

1.17 It was originally envisaged that by March 2006 all agencies should have a system in place.The CPS has a single national system, but not all agencies have achieved this. Progress hasbeen made and interfaces with two of the main police systems are in place, albeit not fullyevaluated.The police use multiple systems rather than one national IT solution.The coremagistrates’ courts’ system LIBRA has been subject to some delays, but it is hoped that it willbe delivered later in this financial year.These issues limit to some extent the benefits that theCPS has been able to achieve so far from fully joined-up IT across the CJS.

1.18 At the time of project initiation the CPS was a significantly different organisation. Since theinitial development, there have been many changes, but two have a particular impact on the ITinfrastructure.The implementation of the statutory charging scheme at police charging centres,together with more than 100 home-based prosecutors providing out-of-hours advice to thepolice (CPS Direct), and the setting up of over 150 Witness Care Units has put a huge strainon the IT network infrastructure.The number of sites has increased from less than 200 tomore than 700 and the network was not designed to cope with such distribution.

1.19 Major initiatives, particularly statutory charging and the advocacy strategy have had an impacton CMS usage. In addition to the infrastructure issues mentioned above, these initiatives havereduced the time that many prosecutors spend in the office.This can have a knock-on impactin terms of availability for training and in some instances of access to, and therefore use of,CMS terminals.

1.20 The progress to date could not have been achieved without a strong partnership approachbetween the CPS and LogicaCMG.The team approach has worked well so far and standsthem in good stead to maintain progress for the remainder of the contract.

3


4


2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General2.1 We found good progress has been made on many fronts since the roll-out of CMS in 2003.

The system is updated twice each year to deliver enhancements and new functionality to takeaccount of user feedback, legislative change and new initiatives.

2.2 Having a single IT case management system offers many opportunities to the CPS, and to thewider criminal justice system. In some instances they have been able to take full advantage ofthe capability, in others more work is required to ensure that maximum benefits are derivedfrom the single system. In essence, effective use of CMS by well trained staff can improve thequality and timeliness of casework; however, at the present time there is too much variation inboth knowledge and usage to take full advantage of the opportunities.

2.3 The CPS is well positioned to take advantage of the electronic exchange of data with othercriminal justice system agencies, as and when the police and courts are further advanced withtheir implementation of national systems. Some interfaces have been developed. However, dueto the volume of piloting that has been possible and the level of review conducted so far, it isdifficult to assess whether electronic interchange will deliver the anticipated benefits in theexpected timeframes. At the present time-limited benefits are available.

2.4 Whilst there is still clearly a need to improve the effectiveness of CMS usage, some progresshas been, and continues to be made.

Review and decision-making2.5 CMS is delivering benefits to review and decision-making. In some instances these are

by-products of more general benefits related to the access to and legibility of electronicrecords.We have noted in earlier inspections that decisions tend to be of a higher qualitywhere they, and the reasoning behind them, are recorded fully and clearly.The majority ofmanagers consider that the structure of the system and the transparency of the data has ledto prosecutors making a more detailed note of the factors taken into consideration andreasoning in the relevant sections of CMS.This also brings benefits to staff subsequentlyinvolved in the case.

2.6 The transparency of information is contributing to driving up standards and has tended tolead staff to feel more accountable for the quality of their work.

2.7 The access to electronic information has brought many benefits to CPS staff, saving them timeand enabling them to give a better service to other interested parties. As with all IT systemsthis is limited by the quality and completeness of data input. More consistent use offunctionality would bring greater benefits.

5


2.8 CMS has helped the CPS to deliver statutory charging, although the way in which the systemis used varies from one Area to another. Due mainly to infrastructure issues, the system doesnot work as quickly in police stations as it does in CPS offices, and this can limit effective usage.

2.9 In our sample of 160 randomly selected trial files, only 75 (47%) contained either an initialreview or an MG3 (a form used to record pre-charge advice) that was considered to be of amoderate or good standard.With regard to a full file review the corresponding figures were72 (45%) out of 160. An alternative test was conducted using only files that had been subjectto pre-charge advice/decision and the corresponding results were that 111 out of 160 files(69%) showed an acceptable initial review or record of advice and that 82 (51%) containedan acceptable full file review. As all electronic trial files should contain both initial and fullreviews, there is clearly scope for improvement in recording on CMS. More detailed analysis iscontained in Annex D.

Case management and progression2.10 CMS is a helpful case management and case tracking tool providing all relevant information is

inputted.There is room for considerable improvement in data entry and greater consistency in the use of functionality. For example, a significant number of prosecutors and caseworkersdo not complete the ‘file location’ box, necessitating additional effort to be expended inlocating files.

2.11 The system is very flexible to accommodate variance in local working practices.Whilst someflexibility is necessary, a balance needs to be struck.The CPS is unlikely to achieve the realbenefits of a single national case management system while it is so easy to opt out or avoidusing the system for key functions. Greater standardisation of processes supported byappropriate policy and guidance is likely to deliver greater benefits.There are mixed views asto whether the system is as user-friendly as it could be.

2.12 CMS and MIS have yet to deliver significant benefits to assist in case progression, althoughsome of the functionality could assist if used effectively. Access to electronic information canalso help progress some cases. However, at the present time, most of the processes to controlcase progression happen outside of CMS.There is little by way of useful managementinformation to drive improvements in progressing cases. An interface to the courts’PROGRESS system is being developed and should bring some benefits in the future.

2.13 The task management system (a process whereby CMS prompts staff on actions that need tobe, or should have been, taken) is unpopular with most staff. It is seen as cumbersome andtime consuming by the majority of staff interviewed.We encountered only one unit whofound the system useful and two others who were on top of the escalated tasks.The otherseither focused on a few key tasks or disregarded it completely.

2.14 Much of the functionality of CMS is well received by the majority of administrative staff.Generally prosecutors and caseworkers are less satisfied overall, although content with manyof the functions. Some of this is attributable to the differing level of general IT skills.

6


2.15 There is scope to improve the process for managing national templates (standard pre-formatteddocuments stored within CMS).The self-population of key data in templates is useful and savestime; however too many templates have needed amendment to make them ‘fit for purpose’ inthe eyes of users. A recent exercise whereby an overnight update of national templates tookplace is a welcome development and demonstrates the potential of national systems.

Change management2.16 Considerable effort was required to roll-out CMS nationally.This was achieved against tight

deadlines and within budget, a significant achievement that should not be under-estimated.This is all the more creditable when set against the lack of experience and expertise in theorganisation at that time to deliver such significant change programmes.

2.17 The strong partnership and collaborative working between the CPS and LogicaCMG havebeen crucial factors in the progress made to date.

2.18 The use of CMS is generally embedded for administrative staff, but there is greaterinconsistency of usage among other categories of staff. System usage is therefore not yet fullyintegrated, but it is improving gradually.

2.19 To train almost the entire workforce in a comparatively short time span was a considerablechallenge. On grounds of pragmatism a broad brush approach was adopted with two nationalcourses (one for prosecutors and caseworkers and one for administrative staff). Staff views onthis approach were mixed; half were satisfied, whereas the rest would have preferred a morefocused or role-based approach.There has been a change of approach from 2006-07 withgreater use of e-learning and role-based training.

2.20 In the early days after implementation, a high level of support was available, mainly throughthe group of selected ‘super-users’ in each Area. Support has diminished over time and needsto be re-invigorated to ensure that staff are kept abreast of all new developments of the system.

2.21 We encountered widespread misconceptions or lack of knowledge about what CMS can donow, and this is a significant barrier to benefit realisation. Some Areas indicated that the skillsgap between the IT-literate and others is widening. Some staff were not aware of, or in somecases not taking advantage of, training that was (and still is) available.

2.22 CMS and MIS have made a tremendous improvement in the CPS capability to manageperformance. A much wider range of data is readily available to staff at all levels.While there isstill a need to develop skills in this aspect of work, all the Areas visited were taking advantageof this facility to some degree.The national performance management regime is nowcomprehensive as a result of MIS data.

2.23 Despite its usefulness as a performance management tool, there have been few meaningfulsystems or measures that enable monitoring of the effectiveness of CMS usage.There is littlein place that allows Area managers or Headquarters to understand whether the system itselfbeing used to best effect.This is being addressed to a degree but some qualitative measuresneed to be developed.

7


2.24 Governance arrangements have evolved over time. In the early days the project was managedby the CPS’s Business Information Systems Directorate (BIS) and LogicaCMG with input fromoperational managers responsible for business delivery.There are various groups who are nowinvolved in the process of driving development of the CMS agenda. As the organisationtransitions from implementation to ‘business as usual’ we consider that the governancearrangements would benefit from review to ensure that future work is driven by the businesspriorities and needs.

2.25 Local management of CMS in Areas needs to be strengthened, with more direction fromsenior managers.There is evidence that senior managers who have not mastered the skills ofsystem usage have lost touch with the work of their staff.There was a link between thoseAreas with stronger local management of CMS, and the performance and results attained.

2.26 The current IT network infrastructure needs to be upgraded to take account of the dramaticchange to the volume and diversity of locations that need to be included.While some changeshave been made with improved connectivity and bandwidth, these are unlikely to prove anadequate long-term solution, particularly as the network requirement continues to grow.

Business development2.27 Users recognise that CMS can help with legislative changes and new initiatives. However, in

too many instances, there is a significant time lag between the law/initiative being implementedand CMS being fully updated. In some cases delays are understandable but in others moreshould have been done to ensure the system was kept up-to-date.

2.28 There has been a lot of activity in the criminal justice system to improve the service to victims and witnesses. Many changes have been made to IT as a result, but development hasbeen somewhat disjointed.The CPS has done well to develop the Witness ManagementSystem on behalf of the criminal justice agencies, albeit further development is required -including improved training and support. A more holistic approach to these issues is requiredto ensure that victims and witnesses get the best possible service with CPS staff having user-friendly processes.

2.29 There are structured processes for designing, testing and implementing new versions of CMS.Good systems are in place that allow users to contribute to future development activity, albeittoo many Areas have failed to take full advantage of this facility. Most releases have gonesmoothly with minimal use of ‘patches’ to remedy problems.There have been a couple ofexamples where the standard development and support processes were not fully utilised andthis resulted in some subsequent problems.

2.30 CMS is an excellent tool for coping with the variety of different structures within the CPS.The system has been shown to be very flexible in adapting to changing Area requirements.The ability to cut performance data in so many ways has also brought advantages.The CPSwas well positioned to cope had the police reform and re-structuring gone ahead.

8


Conclusion2.31 In summary, CMS has the capability to improve the quality and timeliness of casework,

but more needs to be done to ensure that the opportunities are realised. Significant progresshas been made in a comparatively short space of time and many of the more difficult issueshave been tackled or at least progressed.There are still a number of issues that requirefurther work but there is a solid foundation on which to build.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We have chosen not to raise recommendations for some aspects of work whereimprovement is required where we are satisfied that remedial actions are firmly ongoing.We make reference in the report to instances where managers will need to ensure thatproposed actions are effective.There are other issues for management attention that are setout in Annex C.

We have made the following eight recommendations designed to improve the effective use ofCMS to deliver improvements in the timeliness and quality of CPS casework.We recommendthat:

1. A fundamental review of the task lists function is carried out to focus on thoseimportant actions that will add value to the user, and support effective casemanagement and progression (paragraph 5.23).

2. Further work is undertaken to match the network infrastructure capacity to the needsof the business; this includes ensuring that the appropriate tools are in place toaccurately monitor system performance (paragraph 6.30).

3. Area managers:

• improve their understanding of CMS to enable them to give appropriate local direction on system usage;

• set specific staff usage objectives where personal performance needs to improve(paragraph 6.35).

4. The Headquarters governance arrangements of CMS are reviewed to ensure that:

• the CPS priorities are driving the CMS development agenda;

• the form, composition and terms of reference of the various groups are compatible to the needs of the business as a whole; and

• roles, reporting lines and decision-making powers are the most appropriate, taking account of the evolving CPS business needs (paragraph 6.39).

5. Improved systems for evaluating effective use of CMS are introduced, supported by theappropriate formal business measures where necessary (paragraph 6.43).

9


6. Managers should re-invigorate local CMS support mechanisms. Local Implementation Teams (or equivalent) need to become more effective and consideration should be given to formalising the role of super-users.The focus should be on delivering more structured and effective systems for :

• identifying opportunities to improve the system;

• ensuring that staff are aware of changes to the system;

• sharing knowledge and good practice;

• providing pro-active individual support; and

• improving the realisation of potential benefits (paragraph 6.50).

7. The process for implementing legislative change should be improved to ensure thatupdates are made to the system before the changes become law, whenever timescalespermit (paragraph 7.16).

8. There should be a more holistic approach to implementing initiatives, particularly thoseinvolving other criminal justice agencies, to ensure that;

• all aspects of processes, system changes and management information requirements are considered as part of project initiation; and

• compatibility with other initiatives and IT systems is considered (paragraph 7.22).

10


3 METHODOLOGY

The focus of the review3.1 This review could have taken many forms in that implementing a national case management

system under a ten year Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract has many important aspectsworthy of review.When agreeing the scope we took account of many issues, including: otherreview activity, some of which is independent; the timing of the inspection (three years afterroll-out); and the position of the various agencies with regard to joined-up IT.

3.2 The review has benefited from the use of the Issues Analysis Dinner PartyTM (IADPTM)technique.This is a tool developed by the National Audit Office for two purposes. First, it aidsthe scoping of questions at the planning stage of a review/inspection. Secondly, it assists inreport writing by identifying the issues that are of interest to the organisation that is thesubject of the review.The process was helpful in identifying the key questions and lines ofinvestigation. As part of the process, assistance was provided by members of CPSHeadquarters who participated at various stages of the process.

3.3 Taking these factors into account it was agreed, in consultation with the CPS, that the focus ofthe inspection would be to assess whether the use of CMS has improved the quality andtimeliness of casework in the CPS. In doing so, it was decided to include the enabling factorsof Headquarters support and direction in facilitating effective use of the system by Area staff.

3.4 This was broken down into four main themes, each of which has sub-themes.The mainthemes are:

• Has Compass CMS contributed to improvements in review and decision-making?

• Has Compass CMS led to improved case handling and progression across the variousstructures and roles within the CPS?

• Has the approach to change management been effective in integrating Compass CMS intoArea core business?

• Does Compass CMS sustain continuous development of CPS business?

Evidence gathering3.5 The purpose of a thematic review is to paint a national picture about how the CPS deals with

a particular subject throughout England and Wales, based on evidence drawn from a numberof Areas and, where appropriate, CPS Headquarters.

3.6 For this review, we distributed a number of role-based questionnaires to seek user feedback.This was done on a national basis for Chief Crown Prosecutors (CCPs) and Chairs of theLocal Implementation Teams (LITs). A further six questionnaires were developed and sent toindividuals in the Areas visited during the on-site phase.The roles covered were: prosecutors,administrators, caseworkers, Unit Heads/Team Leaders, typists and unit Business/AdministrativeManagers (level B).

11


3.7 Over 1,200 questionnaires were distributed and a response rate of 27.7% was achieved.The key findings are included in Annex B.

3.8 We visited eight CPS Areas, choosing as far as possible ones that had not been subject tomany inspection visits in the recent past.The chosen Areas provided us with a mix of urbanand rural environments, with a range of annual caseload, thereby representing a cross-sectionof the entire CPS. During the site visits we spoke to staff in all roles that might use CMS on aregular basis, as well as managers who might use particular functions of the system.The Areasvisited were Durham, Humberside, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, Surrey,Warwickshire and West Midlands.

3.9 These eight Areas and the relevant Headquarters Directorates were invited to submitinformation in advance of the interview phase to further inform the inspection.

3.10 We examined electronic case files to inform us of the pattern and quality of usage within the Areas visited, the results of which are included in Annex D.We also examined system-generated reports and task lists that further informed us of how effectively CMS is being used.

Structure of findings3.11 To assist in structuring the review the inspection team used the Issues Analysis and Dinner

PartyTM technique. In doing so a question tree was developed with each underlying branchlisting enquiry questions - shown in Annex A.

3.12 The findings of the report follows the high level structure of the question tree with chaptersbased around the four main themes outlined in paragraph 3.4.

12


4 HAS ADOPTING COMPASS CMS CONTRIBUTED TO

IMPROVEMENTS IN REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING?

Overview4.1 It is accepted that the IT by itself is unlikely to improve the quality of legal decisions as this

relies on the skill and knowledge of prosecutors in applying the Code for Crown Prosecutors.However, systems can, and do, support prosecutors - for example giving access to up-to-dateinformation; accurate lists of charges, offences and precedents; access to national informationon defendants; and electronic information allowing some work to be progressed or decisionsto be made without access to paper files.

4.2 Overall, interviewees considered that CMS had brought some benefits to the review anddecision-making processes. Our file reading supports this view although greater consistencystill needs to be achieved. Managers were more enthusiastic and felt that the system wasimproving the quality of recording of decisions, which of itself may improve decision-making byfocusing the minds of prosecutors. It is also deemed to be a benefit to managers in managingunit performance.

4.3 Prosecutors have less opportunity to use the system than other categories of staff as theyspend a significant proportion of their time in court.This tends to make them less confident intheir use of the systems, and some still find CMS ‘complicated’ and difficult to use. However,most prosecutors could see advantages - mainly focused on access to legible information andthe ability to progress some work without the need for the paper file.

4.4 Prosecutors working in charging centres now record the majority of decisions directly ontoCMS with completion of electronic MG3 forms (used to record pre-charge decisions).This provides police officers with a professional document that details any outstanding workwhich needs to be done, and where suitable sets out the appropriate charges. Earlyregistration can prevent problems in matching pre-charge decisions with the subsequentcharge file. Our file sample indicated that when reviews were completed they were thoroughand detailed in the majority of cases. However, there is a need to improve the level ofrecording as compliance rates in the file sample were around 60% - see paragraph 4.10 andAnnex D for more details.

4.5 Overall, CMS has contributed to improvements in review and decision-making, but more canbe done to ensure that maximum benefits are derived. Greater consistency is the key, andtraining and more effective performance management are the means by which improvementscan be delivered.

Process changes4.6 Key processes for review and decision-making have not changed significantly as a direct result

of CMS implementation. However, new initiatives and legislative changes have requiredchanges to working practices and CMS development has had to take account of this.

13


4.7 The best example of this is pre-charge decision-making whereby the system was developedto enable prosecutors to register a case and complete the review and MG3 electronically.This has not been without its challenges as CMS is generally accepted to operate more slowlythan desirable from police stations, and requires some level of competency in general typingand IT skills.This has resulted in some Areas using partly manual processes (hand writtenMG3s with typists or administrative staff updating the computer). Overall our findings indicatethat performance is improving with higher levels of compliance and improved recording,although there is still some way to go.

4.8 Prosecutors now tend to spend much of their time out of the office, either in court or at thecharging centres.This has an impact on the time (and location) available for reviewing files andrecording their decisions. Prosecutors, particularly those in Areas with small rural courts,occasionally have time at the end of court to complete case updates or further review work.Very few prosecutors have laptops and a significant number of magistrates’ courts do nothave CMS terminals which therefore often means that computers are not updatedimmediately (if at all) with work undertaken away from the office.This remains true for thoseprosecutors who conduct reviews in their own time at home.

Recording decisions4.9 The level of reviews recorded on CMS has been disappointing, but has continued to show

gradual improvement.The recording of full file reviews has been a national target, but theunderstanding of all the steps necessary to ensure that a review is counted has been weak fortoo many staff. On the other hand, many Areas were able to improve their ‘performance level’by use of a standard endorsement ‘see paper file’ in the CMS review box.This means that datareported nationally is not necessarily a true representation of Area performance.

4.10 While progress has been gradual, most interviewees consider that improvements are beingmade in recording decisions.This applies both to the volume and quality of reviews recorded.Our file reading indicated variability with work ranging from excellent to poor. In our sampleof 160 randomly selected files, only 93 (58%) of cases contained an MG3 or an initial review,and of these, 75 were considered to be of a moderate or good standard.This means that only75 out of the 160 (47%) cases had acceptable early reviews recorded.With regard to full filereview the corresponding figures were 98 (61%) recorded on CMS and 72 out of 160 (45%)of an acceptable standard. An alternative test was conducted using only files that had beensubject to pre-charge advice and the corresponding results were 111 (69%) showed anacceptable initial review or record of advice and 82 (51%) contained an acceptable full filereview. More detailed analysis is contained in Annex D.

4.11 The majority of managers perceive that prosecutors are improving the level of detail inreviews and giving clearer explanation of the issues taken into account.They believe that the transparency of information on CMS has led to greater accountability and that this isdriving up quality.

14


4.12 The incidence of a review simply stating ‘see paper file’ has reduced since the time of ourOverall Performance Assessment (OPA) file reading in 2005.There are still reviews that arelacking in detail. In some cases this is because the details are included elsewhere andprosecutors are loathe to duplicate effort - for example where a high quality analysis of thecase has been completed as part of the instructions to counsel. In others there is no apparentreason for the poor quality of the recording, suggesting a need for more robust performancemanagement of staff.

4.13 The lack of general IT and typing skills among some prosecutors is deemed to be a barrier for efficient use of technology. In our survey 28% of staff overall, and 38% of prosecutors,perceived that basic IT skills training was not provided. Subsequent interviews demonstratedthat some staff were unaware of courses that were (and still are) available.While there arestill some prosecutors who do not enjoy using technology, we detect a growing acceptancethat it is an integral part of the role and a gradual improvement in uptake is occurring.There is however still some way to go.

Access to electronic information4.14 Most interviewees were able to give examples whereby access to electronic information had

brought benefits.These included dealing with calls from counsel at court, and dealing with un-anticipated cases where warrants had been executed and the defendant brought to court.This enables decisions to be taken that might previously have led to delays.

4.15 The ability to search CMS nationally for other cases relating to a specific defendant has beencited by many as very helpful. Examples were given whereby having access to suchinformation has assisted prosecutors to make better informed and more timely decisions.In one instance a bail application was successfully resisted after a national search indicated thatthe defendant had re-offended elsewhere in the country whilst on bail.

4.16 Whereas everybody recognises the potential of electronic information to assist colleagues,there is still some way to go in achieving the appropriate level of consistency in inputtinginformation to maximise the benefit.This is discussed further in Chapter 5.

Assessment of review and decision-making4.17 The use of CMS and MIS in the assessment of review and decision-making is variable.

The majority of managers stated that CMS is generally helpful in allowing them to monitorsome aspects of casework, but that to assess decision-making it is still necessary to see thepaper file (as only this file will contain all the evidence on which decisions are based).Hopefully, as electronic interfaces with other agencies are developed further, so managers willhave the ability and confidence to use electronic files more.

4.18 Very few managers use CMS as a means for targeting assessment activity by focusing on specifictypes of cases - most tend to stick with a random one file per lawyer per month (the volumesuggested by the national Casework Quality Assurance scheme).While many interviewees wereneutral as to whether CMS assisted in the checks, compliance rates have improved slightly andthe return rate of 64% of target in the final quarter of 2005-06 was the highest of the year.

15


4.19 There is still a comparatively low level of understanding by senior managers as to the fullrange of reporting capabilities of CMS and MIS.The majority of Areas visited were aware of,and sometimes using, the unsuccessful outcomes report in CMS, and some were using themonitoring category reports for sensitive cases.The ability to ‘flag’ cases for tracking purposesand run management reports on specific case types is beneficial. For example, CMS hasimproved the tracking of racist incident cases as was recommended in our Thematic Review ofCasework Having a Minority Ethnic Dimension (published April 2002).

16


5 HAS CMS LED TO IMPROVED CASE HANDLING AND

PROGRESSION ACROSS THE VARIOUS STRUCTURES AND ROLES

WITHIN THE CPS?

Overview5.1 CMS is a helpful case tracking and case management tool that brings a number of benefits to

users and the organisation. Like all computer systems, the extent of benefits realisation islimited to some extent by the quality and consistency of data input. At the present time CMShas some weaknesses as a system to support case progression.Work is underway to deliveran interface to the courts’ PROGRESS system in November, and this should help to remedythe situation to some extent.

5.2 CMS is very flexible and has been able to accommodate a wide range of Area structures andworking practices. In some respects it may be too flexible in allowing such variance in workpractices. Greater standardisation needs to be achieved, hopefully taking account of good practice.

5.3 Staff have much better access to IT equipment than was previously the case. Nevertheless,there is scope to review the availability of terminals in magistrates’ courts and access to laptops.

5.4 The task list functionality is not yet delivering the anticipated benefits and very few staff orunits use the function to good effect.The management of templates needs improving.

5.5 There is significant disparity among Areas, units and individuals as to how they use the systemto support case management and preparation. Some functions are well liked and used byalmost all staff, whereas others attract a variety of views. In some cases this is linked to generalIT skills and in others there is a tendency for role-specific variance; for example, approximatelyhalf of the prosecutors considered that the system was over complicated and not user-friendly- the other half think it is acceptable.The system is improved with enhancements and newfunctionality twice a year.

5.6 Evidence of efficiency savings was mixed although on balance there were more positiveexamples than negative.The variable IT skills among staff has an impact on the level ofefficiency savings that are being made.

5.7 Despite having some concerns, the majority (60%) of staff who completed questionnairesconsider that CMS makes either themselves or their unit more efficient. Similarly,approximately two thirds believe the system already matches the needs of their role.Administrative staff are more content with the functionality of CMS than other roles, althoughthis is in part due to the amount of time that they spend using the system.

5.8 CMS and MIS can both provide information that assists staff in various roles to understand andimprove performance. Some of the static information held in the system, for example offences,charges, and templates, are not always up-to-date, and as a result are not fully trusted.

17


5.9 In conclusion, CMS has led to improved case handling and management, but more needs tobe done to improve the case progression capability of the system.

Structures and equipment5.10 The CMS system has successfully taken account of the variable structures within the CPS.

While we do not encourage the existence of numerous different processes and file flows withinthe organisation, some flexibility is important to take account of legitimate local variances.The only example of difficulty we encountered was in an Area where caseworkers wereallocated to multiple units, and this had made controlling individual workload more complicated.

5.11 All members of staff now have access to a desktop or laptop computer in their base office.Most Areas were content with the level of equipment provided for charging centres, albeit inone Area a request for additional equipment in a remote police station was still underconsideration, and the cause of some frustration. A quarterly review process was implementedat the end of 2005 with a view to ensuring that equipment is appropriately deployed and redundantuser ‘sign-ons’ are deleted. Some re-allocation of equipment has taken place as a result.

5.12 CMS terminals are generally available in CPS rooms at Crown Court centres.These have beenuseful for amending indictments amongst other things.The position in the magistrates’ courtsis somewhat different and many do not have access to terminals.There were mixed views asto whether this was a problem or a missed opportunity. No Area expressed significantconcern at the lack of equipment in courts, but this negates the ability to send information orrequests to others (generally police or Witness Care Units) at the earliest opportunity.

5.13 In most Areas, at least some prosecutors feel that access to a laptop would be an advantageand enable them to input more information into CMS. Others feel that it would lead to anexpectation of ‘even more work’ outside normal working hours.There are obviously somecost and security implications, but there may be scope for some development on a locallyagreed basis. A recent Infrastructure Efficiencies study concluded that the laptops currently inuse (approximately 1,000) resulted in an ‘efficiency benefit’ of almost £5.5 million, albeit thiswas mainly attributed to managers.

Functionality

General

5.14 There are a number of aspects of functionality or features of CMS that a wide range of stafffind very helpful.The most frequent compliments related to the ease of finding information inan electronic file. Benefits included basic issues such as the fact that everything is legible andgenerally easier to find because of the structured way in which information is stored.The overview and history functions are well liked in that they give an easy to follow guide as to what has happened so far on a case, and when the next hearing is to be held (provided the relevant information has been input). As stated elsewhere the fact thatinformation can be obtained without the paper file is a significant benefit.

18


5.15 Whilst a number of templates are not popular, most staff like the fact that key informationself-populates. Administrative staff are generally happy with most aspects of functionality, withparticular praise for police memos, and Section 9 functions.The majority also believe thatmost of the mandatory functions such as registration are efficient and easy to use.

5.16 Most staff consider the standard ‘find cases’ search helpful, and prosecutors and caseworkersparticularly like the ability to conduct national searches. Feedback on other search functions ismixed with those relating to charges, offences and precedents being less popular, and thoserelating to cases or case types being more favourably received.

5.17 The committal preparation function attracts very diverse views - approximately half of thepeople who commented believe the process to be good whereas the rest find it to be time-consuming and cumbersome.We found five different processes in place for committalpreparation. In two of these systems, the preparation was conducted outside of CMS and wasnot subsequently attached to the relevant section of the electronic file - this is unacceptable.This variability is an example that demonstrates that whilst there is a single national IT systemin place, there are not yet standardised national processes that contribute to improved qualityand efficiency.

5.18 There are divided views as to whether the system is user-friendly and easy to use. General ITskills and the frequency of use are the dominant factors in people’s perceptions; administrativestaff who use the system regularly are more satisfied than prosecutors who use the systemfor a small proportion of their time. Later in this section, we highlight some functions that arenot considered user-friendly.

5.19 Managers and staff find benefit in the reporting functions, particularly those relating tounsuccessful outcomes and monitoring categories.There is still scope to improve theunderstanding of the full range of reports and the potential benefits they bring.

Task lists

5.20 When CMS was developed LogicaCMG were asked to provide a case management systemthat prompted staff to complete tasks/actions.This is a sound concept that should deliverbenefits to users. However, whilst staff understand the concept and possible benefits, there iscurrently a perception amongst the majority of users that the ‘task’ functions are not fit forpurpose. Inspectors have found some aspects of the task list helpful in assessing aspects ofperformance, but share the view that better targeting and focus would encourage greaterusage of the facility. Issues raised/noted included:

• tasks raised on the wrong individual or at an inappropriate time;

• too many unimportant or unnecessary tasks raised;

• tasks completed still show as outstanding;

• too big and complex to be user-friendly; and

• tasks remain outstanding because work was conducted ‘outside’ of CMS.

19


5.21 This has resulted in low levels of use of the function. In consequence, in most Areas,the number of outstanding and escalated tasks is extremely high, and this has made thechallenge of using the function efficiently even more daunting. In only one unit of the Areasvisited was the task list viewed as a positive help and managed accordingly. In two others itwas managed to keep the level of tasks down. Most of the Areas have some oversight of thetasks that appear on national usage statistics, but mainly in a re-active approach. Most Areashave at some time or another undertaken a ‘task busting’ exercise to clear old and thereforeredundant tasks, but the root causes have not been addressed and the problem returns.

5.22 As the task model has some flexibility, Areas were given assistance in setting bespoke taskparameters at the time of implementation.The ability to manage configuration locally on anongoing basis appears to have been overlooked over time, and few of the Areas have takenadvantage of (or were still aware of) the ability to do so.

5.23 Users are not getting the benefit of a useful and sensible prompt system and, in fact, a numberof staff expressed the view that ‘managing tasks has become an industry in its own right’ - thisneeds to be addressed quickly.The volume of outstanding tasks acts as a deterrent to effectiveusage of the facility.The most recent release of CMS has some changes that will automaticallyclear certain tasks at given points in time - whilst this will be helpful in reducing the number ofoutstanding tasks, it does not address the root cause of the problem.The issue has beenrecognised at a national level and a review of the task function has been proposed, albeit thescope of the work is still a little sketchy.

RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that a fundamental review of the task lists function is carried out tofocus on those important actions that will add value to the user, and support effectivecase management and progression.

Templates

5.24 Another aspect of functionality where the concept is good but the delivery is less positive isthe use of templates. Many staff are appreciative of the time that can be saved by templatesthat self-populate with relevant information. However, their enthusiasm is tempered by thefact that templates are often out-of-date or include grammatical or format errors. Areas haveaddressed the issue differently: some avoid using templates in the system and do much oftheir work in MS Word documents; one has adapted the templates and uses all local versions;others are frustrated but still use the templates, making any necessary amendments each time.

5.25 This has been a particular source of dissatisfaction in respect of coping with legislative change (see Chapter 7), where several examples were given of wrong or missing templates.There have been issues of ownership of the national templates as they are linked to theNational Forms Register.Whilst there is a national group with responsibility for updating theforms, this has not been happening - sometimes because they are not aware of the need tochange.We understand that changes were made recently that transferred ownership of formsand templates to the most relevant directorate or project group in Headquarters.This willneed to be monitored to ensure that it improves the current level of service to users.

20


5.26 Historically, templates were only upgraded as part of the twice-yearly CMS new releases.In April 2006, a large number of templates were added/amended independently of a formalrelease.This is a very positive development and demonstrates one of the potential benefits ofa national system. Although Areas were notified of the change, we found that not everyonewas aware of the updates.This may mean that some of the negative feedback was based onout-of-date information. Not all Areas were fully aware of the capability to modify or add localtemplates to CMS.

Consistency

5.27 While there are technical reasons why some functionality is not used as effectively as it might be, there are other aspects that are not used consistently for a number of differentreasons, including:

• ‘that’s not how we do it here’;

• perceived time constraints;

• lack of knowledge that functionality exists;

• lack of confidence to use functions where limited/no training provided; and

• ‘paper file is still master’.

5.28 Examples of functionality not used consistently include: use of the communications functionsto log in/out correspondence and telephone calls; use of secure e-mail to communicate withother agencies; including sentence details in CMS; inputting defence details in the system;custody time limit functions; and use of the committal preparation package. In our survey 31%of respondents said that they choose to avoid some functions in CMS, albeit this varied fromrole to role.

5.29 In our file sample of 160 cases that had been subject to pre-charge advice, we assessedgeneral use of the system in addition to review and decision-making functions. One Areascored poorly with only three out of 20 (15%) being considered acceptable whereas anotherachieved 19 out of 20 (95%).The results tended to align with Area circumstances anddifficulties. A more comprehensive test was also conducted where the file was assessed foroverall usage (initial review/pre-charge advice, full file review and other general non-decisionwork). Of the 160 cases assessed only 33% had acceptable CMS usage across all threecategories.This gives some indication of the improvement necessary in order to enable themove to an all electronic file. Further details of the file examination are contained in Annex D.

5.30 It was envisaged that a national case management system would encourage greaterstandardisation of processes and that the structured approach would lead to clarity ofindividuals’ roles. Some Areas have achieved a degree of consistency, but more remains to bedone. Only 22% of survey respondents felt that any improvement in the clarity of roles hadbeen achieved (27% disagreed with the proposition).

21


Case progression

5.31 CMS can do more to support case progression. At the present time, most Areas’ caseprogression processes are predominantly manual, although CMS is used as a reference pointfor some issues.We have commented separately on the concern over the task model thatwas envisaged as a key case progression function. One specific issue raised by some users wasthe limitation in CMS to record reasons for adjournments in relevant cases.This is animportant indicator of case progression and could help to drive inter-agency work forward.We have been told that this was a policy decision as opposed to a system limitation.There islittle management information available on case progression/efficiency, and the CPS is heavilyreliant on court-provided data, which focuses only on trials.

5.32 Work has been undertaken on developing an interface with the courts’ case progression systemPROGRESS. It is intended that this should be ready for the November release of CMS, and wouldenable the interface to be piloted.The system focuses on managing court orders and directions,and as such does not deal with all issues of case progression.The CPS has very limitedinformation on efficiency and timeliness of case progression and this needs to be improved.

Witness care

5.33 Witness Care Units (WCUs) are not taking full advantage of the Witness ManagementSystem (WMS).This is mainly attributable to the poor levels of training and support that havebeen made available so far. Processes in WCUs are predominantly manual in most Areas withlimited use of technology. Most Units take a high percentage of their information from sourcesother than the CPS and use of CMS to assist them in their role is minimal.Those who wereusing the IT were generally satisfied with the functionality, although again, templates wereconsidered to be a weakness.

5.34 While the CPS has done well to develop a system that should have fallen under the auspicesof the Criminal Justice IT programme, there is still a long way to go before an effective witnesscare IT solution is in place.We recognise that the system is comparatively new having onlycommenced national roll-out in 2005.We have made a recommendation in Chapter 7 on theneed to improve the processes for implementing initiatives and witness care is a primeexample of where more needs to be done.

Conclusion

5.35 There are some aspects of functionality that need to be improved if they are to gain full useracceptance. Significant efforts are made to improve the functionality. New versions of thesystem are released twice a year, utilising user feedback as one of the primary sources to drivedevelopment activity (there is still a need to improve the Areas’ use of the Issues Log forreporting improvement opportunities). A number of issues raised by interviewees during theinspection have subsequently been addressed in the July release of the system.

Time saving and efficiency5.36 Access to electronic case information is popular and has saved staff time in a variety of

circumstances. Examples given included: handling queries or complaints from the public orpress; progressing cases without the paper file; search facilities; and locating specific informationis easier with the structured layout of an electronic case file.

22


5.37 From the Inspectorate’s viewpoint, CMS is helpful in that inspectors can examine informationelectronically, allowing them to gather information with less inconvenience to CPS offices.In some inspections this allows a reduction in file samples, leading to a considerable timesaving for Area staff.

5.38 Administrative staff believe that some tasks are more time-consuming, although they recognisethat they are providing a lot more data than was previously the case and that this has benefitsfor themselves and others ‘further down the road’.The need to input witness details on morefiles has led to a reduction in the use of the ‘quick register’ facility - this has increased the timetaken to register files.There was consensus that opportunities to save time were being missed,particularly in respect of preparing courts. A high percentage of staff, particularly lawyers andcaseworkers, frequently fail to update the file location box, resulting in administrative staff stillspending more time than necessary in searching for files - it is also still too common forprosecutors not to have all the files in court at the right time.

5.39 An additional concern to many staff is that only one person at a time can access an electronicfile - if the case is already open it will be locked out to other users.While the rationale behindthe ‘lock out’ is to some degree understandable, it has become a source of frustration tousers, particularly since the introduction of Witness Care Units. Previously, very urgent matterssuch as late committal preparation could be handled by more than one person, thusaccelerating the process. Conversely, the fact that there is now an electronic and a paper filedoes mean that more than one person can work on a case at the same time and this isadvantageous when information does not need to be added immediately to the electronic file.

5.40 Staff often need to work on more than one case at a time in order to allow them to deal withqueries efficiently - this is particularly true for the Witness Care Units. As there is no facility tominimise a transaction, they either close down the case they are working on, or open anothersession.This is not efficient and has led to staff losing work that was not saved properly.

5.41 A number of prosecutors expressed the view that it is unproductive for them to spendsignificant amounts of time in typing information into the system and that the work sits morecomfortably with skilled typists.The view was by no means universal and many lawyers,particularly recent joiners, are content to input relevant information.

5.42 The volume of small savings that can be made by effective use of the system outweighs theaspects where the system is less efficient (for the purposes of this judgement we are nottaking account of the speed of the system which we discuss elsewhere). In our survey, 60% ofrespondents considered that CMS has made them, or their unit, more efficient.Those leastsatisfied are typists and prosecutors.

5.43 There is little doubt that, as users become more familiar with, and begin to use the full rangeof functions in a more consistent way, so the time savings can be improved. Ongoingimprovements to functionality will also help.

23


Information5.44 Most managers are confident that they use the system to good effect for information

gathering. Our interviews indicated that many were not aware of the full range of optionsopen to them. Some functions, for example the audit trail, were seen as crucial by somemanagers whereas others never use it at all. However, overall, managers are now much betterinformed, particularly on performance issues.

5.45 There is mistrust of a few reports generated by the system, although in some cases this wassubsequently shown to be related to data entry issues and a lack of understanding as to whatindividual reports represent.This was particularly true for the different reports available onpre-charge advice cases. Examples included: inaccuracy in Basic Command Unit static data,lack of understanding of ‘undefined’ category, and lack of knowledge of the impact of ‘actiondates’ in some reports.The failure to keep all information up-to-date, particularly in respect of new requirements brought about by legislative change, has dented confidence in systemheld information.

Barriers to using CMS5.46 We refer elsewhere in the report to some significant barriers that inhibit optimum usage of

CMS.These include issues such as the speed of system, the time available for prosecutors forusage, and training.

5.47 There are however some other issues that impact on peoples’ usage that need to beaddressed, particularly as some of the concerns may not be fully founded.They include:

• perception that mistakes can not be rectified - this results in people not ‘dispatching’ items,leaving tasks open, or doing work outside the system;

• perception that data is ‘lost’ and not recoverable - this leads to significant amounts of workbeing conducted outside CMS (may or may not be subsequently attached). MS Word isdeemed to be much more reliable and the ‘autosave’ function gives confidence that workwill not be lost;

• perceptions of duplicate effort - for example instructions to counsel/full file review. Not allstaff understand ‘cut and paste’ facilities which might assist in overcoming their concerns;

• belief that custody time limit calculations are unreliable;

• views that the system is not user-friendly (mainly prosecutors and typists);

• lack of understanding of secure e-mail capabilities within CMS;

• non-use of local configuration to overcome specific Area concerns; and

• some user perception is out-of-date and does not take account of changes implemented.CMS does not feature regularly in management issues in the Areas visited, although insome the Local Implementation Team still meets.

5.48 Some of these concerns are being addressed through improvements in new releases of CMS.However, many of them can be remedied by providing a greater level of user education.

24


6 HAS THE APPROACH TO CHANGE MANAGEMENT BEEN EFFECTIVE

IN INTEGRATING COMPASS CMS INTO AREA CORE BUSINESS?

Overview6.1 Preparing 42 Areas to implement such a far-reaching change has been a major undertaking -

possibly the biggest challenge yet faced by the CPS. As recently as 2000-01 very few CPS staffhad access to a computer let alone a complex case management system.There was also alack of expertise in implementing major change.Whilst we are unable to give unqualifiedassurance that the approach to change management has been effective in integrating CMSinto core business, real progress has been made in a comparatively short space of time.More needs to be done but there is a solid foundation on which to build.

6.2 There was a strong support framework available to users in the early days of implementation.While most of the support roles and functions still exist, they have changed over time andsome are now less effective than others.The role of local ‘super-users’ worked well in theearly stages, but has since become much less effective in most units.The CustomerRelationship Managers (CRMs) have done well in supporting the majority of the 42 Areas,albeit the level of assistance required and given varies by location.

6.3 The requirement to train the entire workforce in a comparatively short time frame was amajor challenge in 2003 and 2004 but was achieved on time. Staff perceptions on the qualityand relevance of training were mixed. Changes have recently been made (July and August) tothe delivery of training - these augur well for the future.

6.4 Local Implementation Teams (LITs) did a lot of good work at the time of implementation.Ongoing management of technology issues has reduced over time and in some Areas is inneed of re-invigoration.There is some risk in Areas where there is no active LIT, or similargroup with a technology focus, as the level of understanding among senior managers of ITgenerally, and CMS in particular, is too low to be able to give effective direction.

6.5 The governance at both local and national level would benefit from review as the organisationtransitions from implementation to benefits realisation.

6.6 CMS and MIS have improved significantly the ability of the CPS to monitor performanceacross a range of casework issues. Ironically, the performance targets on CMS usage have notbeen reliable measures of whether an Area is using the system effectively. Some changes havebeen proposed in 2006-07 that include measures which are a little more relevant, but theyare at best indicators and not effective targets.

6.7 The infrastructure over which technology is delivered needs to be upgraded to take accountof the significant change to the number and location of sites.

25


Preparation of Areas by Headquarters6.8 Significant efforts were made by the CMS Programme team to assist Areas in the original

implementation of the system. All Areas received visits from Headquarters staff and a lot of‘hands on’ support was made available to Area Local Implementation Teams. Change managers,CRMs and the Director of Business Information Systems were all involved in raising the profileof, and giving practical assistance in, implementing CMS.This included support and help onprocess mapping, which was a challenge in that, at the time of implementation, existingcasework processes were only considered to be documented or up to date in 38% of Areas.

6.9 The organisation has shown real drive in meeting the project implementation plans; theirapproach and determination has been a strength that other projects could learn from. In theearly days LogicaCMG were more actively involved in support whereas the CPS have movedmuch of the capability ‘in-house’ now - for example the business analysts and CRMs are morewidely involved than previously.

6.10 Guidance on the roles and responsibilities for LITs was comprehensive and generally wellreceived. Overall 71% of LIT chairs (who responded to our questionnaire) were positiveabout the support they received from Headquarters, with a further 13% neutral.

6.11 A significant amount of communication on CMS was sent out by Headquarters using a varietyof media. A lot of helpful information was available via the intranet although too few staffwere aware of, or making full use of, this facility. Further efforts have been made since theintranet was upgraded in 2006 (now the Infonet) to encourage staff to take note of keycommunications. A number of interviewees suggested that some communications ‘oversold’the true benefits of CMS available at the outset.

6.12 Whilst there were some difficulties, overall the implementation was handled well in thecontext of the challenging deadlines set, and the inexperience of the organisation in managingsuch radical changes.

Training and support provided by Headquarters

General

6.13 The provision of initial training for CMS users is a contractual requirement on Logica CMG.They have sub-contracted to Steria who provide training on their behalf. In the early stages of implementation the trainers did not understand the CPS business processes and this wasthe cause of user frustration as they could not readily relate to questions raised by trainees.This has improved over time although can still cause some problems.

6.14 Over a thousand training courses were held throughout England and Wales with more than7,500 delegates. In order to achieve the deadline, it was decided to deliver a single standardcourse for caseworkers and prosecutors and a separate course for administrators. As a result,training was ‘broad brush’.The views of staff on the quality and relevance of training were splitdown the middle - half were satisfied, whereas the rest think a more focused or role-basedapproach would have been better.The approach taken was pragmatic if the timeframe wascrucial; however, some staff found the training difficult and as such the uptake of system usage

26


was affected. Super-users and deskside support were made available, and further progress wasmade, but understandably there were some limitations as to what they could achieve.The approach of ‘one size fits all’ is being replaced by more role-based and e-learning optionsfrom 2006-07.This is a welcome development, although it is too soon to judge whether it willhave the desired impact.

6.15 Some managers would prefer to be able to certify users locally to obtain sign-on rights toCMS.This is particularly true for those staff who have very specific roles that require a limitedamount of training, or for staff who are only working short-term contracts, and is worthy offurther consideration.Their concern is exacerbated by delays in getting places on formalnational courses that are currently a pre-requisite for a sign-on.

New releases

6.16 The range of support material readily accessible on the Infonet is improving and can bebeneficial in assisting staff to understand changes to the system.The ‘Bridging the Gap’document explaining the changes to the most recent release of CMS is comprehensive (174 pages long), and access to the electronic document enables easy navigation to sectionsof relevance/interest.There is also some desktop guidance on the new pre-charge decisionfunctionality. Awareness of the availability of this information source needs improving.

6.17 Training on new releases is also delivered by Steria.Whilst the level of training time variesaccording to the size of the Area, most receive one day with an expectation that a cascadeprocess will be put in place.This is not proving to be the case and the reality is that manystaff, particularly prosecutors, have not been given formal training on changes implemented.There is a useful system whereby staff have access to a ‘virtual tutor’ to assist them withqueries on the new release. Some deskside support is also subsequently provided, but again itis proving difficult in many Areas to achieve high levels of attendance.

6.18 This has resulted in a lower than desirable level of understanding of the system among largegroups of users.We observed numerous examples in interview where one member of staffsaid ‘if only CMS could do .....’, only to be told by a colleague or inspector, that it could.The demise of pro-active super-users has not helped, and the level of time spent out of theoffice can make it difficult for prosecutors to keep up to speed with developments.There areopportunities for significant gains to be made if better ways can be found to update knowledge- possibly with more effective use of super-users and CRMs.We were encouraged to note thatin the most recent release there were specific sessions for prosecutors to familiarise them withchanges to pre-charge decision functionality.There is scope to improve the integration ofsystem changes and effective IT usage generally into standard legal training courses.

6.19 There is a ‘model office’ version of CMS that is made available to only a few selected staff fortesting and training purposes. A number of interviewees expressed the view that, whilstgrateful for presentations, there is no substitute for actually using the system to try newfunctionality.There is scope to make greater use of a networked training package.We weretold that work is in hand to try and improve the capacity of the current system with a viewto making it more widely available, albeit the focus is likely to be on testing.

27


Customer Relationship Managers

6.20 Each Area has a designated CRM to support them; they are employed by Headquarters’Business Information Systems Directorate (BIS) and assist around six Areas each. CRMs haveprovided a valuable service to Areas over the years, albeit the level of engagement does varyand is to a large extent controlled by the Areas themselves.We received positive feedbackfrom all of the Areas visited, even where the level of involvement was comparatively low. Insome cases there were signs of over-reliance on the CRMs for matters that should have beenpart of Area responsibility (see also paragraph 6.33). Examples include minuting all meetings,taking most action points from those meetings, and raising Area problems in Issues Logs.

6.21 CRM activity has tended to focus around LIT meetings.The fact that there has been limited LIT activity in recent times places the relationship on a somewhat different footing.CRMs now need to be more pro-active and innovative if they are to ensure that their effortsare targeted effectively.

6.22 CRMs are well positioned to assist Areas make sure that they get the best out of CMS interms of effective use of the system - they have been perhaps too focused on ensuring target attainment.

Service Desk

6.23 The feedback on the support provided by the Service Desk was mixed, but on the wholestaff are reasonably satisfied with the level of service provided. User satisfaction is monitoredregularly by BIS through regular monthly sampling of 100 users and as part of the widerquarterly surveys. Satisfaction ratings show continued gradual improvements in recent months(84.8% in Oct 2005 up to 87.1% in May 2006).

6.24 The BIS surveys incorporate a wider range of general IT support issues.The ratings for CMS-related calls are not as high as for general IT issues, although they are still positive(approximately 80% in May). Our own findings were a little less positive, and some of this maybe attributable to the different cross-section of users involved; in our survey only 51.8%agreed with the proposition that the Service Desk is effective in solving Area CMS issues; andin interviews we received a number of specific examples where assistance could have beenimproved.The main concerns were: the variability in assistance available from individual ServiceDesk staff - some were perceived as excellent, others poor; and the length of time to get aresponse on calls that are escalated to CMS specialists - in some cases this may have been adelay in being informed that the problem had been resolved.

Infrastructure6.25 The CPS faces a significant challenge in delivering networked IT services due to limitations in

the current infrastructure capability which was not designed to cope with the number anddiversity of sites covered today.To put this in context, at the time of the inception of the‘project’ there were less than 200 CPS sites whereas there is now a need to service over 700locations, many of which are in private homes, police or court premises.

28


6.26 A review has been undertaken recently and an options paper drafted. It is recognised thatthere are funding issues that may put some constraints on what can be delivered, but it isimportant that the matter is addressed.The current CPS strategy has some stretching goals,including links to other agency IT systems and a flexible working strategy.These could bothadd additional pressure to the existing network demands.This is an extremely important point as there is widespread perception that the system is too slow, particularly from non-CPS locations.

6.27 User perception of the speed of response of the system is not positive and was stated bysome to inhibit usage.Whilst there are detailed service level agreements (SLAs) in place tocover many aspects of the service provided by LogicaCMG, we were concerned that they didnot necessarily apply to many of the ‘remote’ sites - particularly in respect of the speed ofresponse of the system - this needs to be addressed. Only 163 of the 735 sites are subject tothe relevant CMS response time SLA.

6.28 The perception was not limited to remote sites, although it was clear that the CPS offices areless extensively affected.The main points of concern in the offices related to openingdocuments and reports.There appears to be a difference between user expectations and the requirements of the SLA, giving raise to some doubts as to the appropriateness of theSLA criteria.

6.29 Work has been undertaken to upgrade the connections and bandwidth at a significantnumber of remote sites.While this has improved the situation to some extent, user concernspersist, and this is not likely to be an adequate solution in the long-term.

6.30 Historically, LogicaCMG have not had all the appropriate tools to monitor infrastructure andcapacity issues in real time. An options paper was drafted in June 2006 to improve thesituation by utilisation of network monitoring software, although the outcome of the proposalwas unknown at the time of the inspection.

RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that further work is undertaken to match the network infrastructurecapacity to the needs of the business; this includes ensuring that the appropriate toolsare in place to accurately monitor system performance.

Governance6.31 In difficult circumstances, the LITs put a significant amount of effort into the original

implementation of CMS. In many cases, it was through the sheer hard work of a small groupof people that the implementation was able to keep to the schedule.They were wellsupported by Headquarters staff in many instances. As very few people from either grouphad any significant experience or expertise in such projects, it is all the more creditable thatthey were able to achieve so much in the early stages.

29


6.32 As time has passed the influence of LITs has diminished and in most of the Areas we visitedthey had been inactive or stood down for most of the previous year. It is to be expected thatthe role would change over time, and in the right circumstances, it is appropriate for theownership of technology issues to transfer to line managers. Our findings suggest that in toomany Areas the diluted role of LITs has led to a lack of focus on CMS with the result thatopportunities are being missed.

6.33 In some cases, as the LIT and supporting structures have reduced their input the Areas havebecome more reliant on CRMs for too many technology-related issues. Engagement anddelegation are fine - abdication of responsibility is not.

6.34 The level of knowledge of CMS among senior managers was not high in most Areas andthere were instances of significant variance between managers’ perception and the reality ofArea issues.We understand that consideration is being given to the development of a seniorexecutive training module for Chief Crown Prosecutors (CCPs) and Area Business Managers(ABMs).We consider that many level E managers would also benefit from such training.

6.35 There is limited evidence of plans to address CMS issues even in some Areas where there isan operational LIT. While a lot of progress has been made, equally there is still a long way togo before the full benefits and efficiencies of CMS are achieved.This is unlikely to be achievedwithout active management - whether by a dedicated group or by line managers.The mainfocus is on achieving the national targets as opposed to gaining the maximum benefits fromeffective use of CMS.Very few staff had meaningful objectives in relation to using CMSeffectively (if they had any IT objectives at all). It is recognised that there are a number ofinitiatives and ‘conflicting’ priorities but CMS should be of help in delivering most of these.

RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that Area managers:

• improve their understanding of CMS to enable them to give appropriate local direction on system usage;

• set specific staff usage objectives where personal CMS performance needs to improve.

6.36 National governance of IT has evolved from a situation where the Programme Board were in sole control of issues, with some support from various committees and groups.The Programme Board no longer exists and from a CMS perspective, the current governancestructure includes a Delivery and Change Committee, an Information, Communication andTechnology Committee (ICT), a Business Design Authority (BDA), a User Advisory Group(UAG), a Centre of Excellence, specialist project teams (charging and No Witness, No Justice),and Headquarters business leads as identified for the national performance managementregime, does not help clarify roles.Whilst all these groups do some good work and most havetheir own terms of reference, there is overlap and some lack of clarity as to who should dowhat.The overall co-ordination and direction needs improving.

30


6.37 At the outset, the structure of the CPS was quite different in that the Business DevelopmentDirectorate did not even exist. Understandably BIS took the lead on the project with theFinance Director undertaking the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) role.

6.38 The SRO for CMS is now the Director of the Business Development Directorate.This isincreasingly important as the CMS programme is moving from implementation to theoperational delivery stage.While the SRO is the ultimate decision-maker many of the keydecisions are still heavily influenced by BIS staff. The current structure encourages the viewthat IT is separate from core business and in some instances is perceived to be driving thebusiness agenda, as opposed to supporting it.

6.39 As CMS has substantially changed the mode of delivering business, we consider that moredirection needs to be given by the operational arm of the business.This should also helpensure that optimum business benefits are realised. Some work has already been initiated onthis subject, but it was not sufficiently advanced for us to assess the effectiveness of anyproposals. Accordingly we consider that existing governance arrangements should bereviewed. Such a review could usefully consider whether some staff and roles are situated inthe most appropriate Directorate in order to best drive the business priorities.

RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that the Headquarters governance arrangements of CMS arereviewed to ensure that:

• the CPS priorities are driving the CMS development agenda;

• the form, composition and terms of reference of the various groups arecompatible with the needs of the business as a whole;

• roles, operational reporting lines and decision-making powers are the mostappropriate, taking account of the evolving CPS business needs.

Monitoring and managing usage6.40 CMS and MIS are extremely useful in providing performance information.Without MIS the

CPS would struggle to sustain its national performance management regime. Managers nowhave access to a much wider range of data on which to base strategy and decisions.

6.41 Despite its usefulness as a performance management tool, there have been few meaningful systemsor measures that enable monitoring of the effectiveness of system usage.Targets previouslyexisted on full file reviews recorded on the system, indictments prepared in CMS, and log-ins.Whilst they could give some indication of usage they are not reliable as measures of effectiveuse of CMS.We have observed ‘work-arounds’ that add no value and are designed to enableAreas to meet targets - for example logging-on, but doing no work in the system or inputtingstandard phrases in review fields that do not constitute an electronic record of a proper, detailedreview of the case. In other instances we saw examples whereby good use was being made ofthe system generally, but lack of understanding as to how the system ‘counts’ some target measureshad led to some under-recording. Compliance with the indictment measure has been high, probablybecause it is difficult to complete the case in CMS if the indictment is not built in the system.

31


6.42 These measures are included in the national performance management framework.Performance against the usage targets has been disappointing and it is the only measure thatwas rated as ‘RED’ on a national basis in the final quarter of 2005-06.Whether this should bea matter for serious concern is open to debate, but clearly there is scope for improvement.

6.43 New targets are being put in place for 2006-07.These focus on Crown Court trial reviews,and the use of MG3s.While these are better than previous measures, they are still not areliable indicator of effective CMS usage. In our judgement these are ‘soft’ targets that are notstretching. It is disappointing that targets scheduled to be introduced in respect of recordingwitness details (as required by the new Victims’ Code) have been dropped. More needs to bedone to ensure that Area and Headquarters managers fully understand how effectively (ornot as the case may be) CMS is being used in Areas.

RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that improved systems for evaluating the effective use of CMS areintroduced, supported by the appropriate formal business measures where necessary.

6.44 There is little by way of any national pattern of usage. Consideration should be given toadopting some form of minimum standard based on the role and the level of experience withthe system.This would need to be reflected in core competencies and should supportindividual objectives.

6.45 The development of the reporting of the new measures has not followed the usual stringentdesign, testing and release procedures.There is a strong perception that the early data wasincorrect and has adversely affected the credibility of the reports.There was recognition in BISthat the data was not fully tested and constituted a risk. Changes have been made and a sharpjump in ‘performance’ has been recorded in subsequent months. At the present time, reportsdo not go down to transaction level, making it very difficult for Areas to reconcile or validatedata produced centrally.

6.46 There is a significant amount of work conducted to evaluate the potential benefits of CMS to the Service.These focus on the ‘opportunity’ savings that accrue, primarily as a result oftime saved by effective use of the system. As these were not fully within the scope of theinspection they were not assessed in great detail.The scale of the benefits that are believed to be available is extremely high. For example a recent Benefits Redeployment Studyconcluded that CMS had facilitated absorption of additional work to the value of £31 millionper annum.The CMS business case also suggests ‘savings’ that run into tens of millions peryear.These projected savings need to be independently assessed in the future to validate theextent to which real economies are achieved.There are significant challenges in evaluating theextent to which CMS contributes to improved performance, as there are many initiatives inplace that contribute, some of which are related to other criminal justice system agencies. It isworth noting that in the four years since project initiation, the standard CPS non-ring fencedrunning costs budget has increased by 60%.

32


Locally provided training and support6.47 After initial national training it was anticipated that the locally identified super-users would

become the focal point for user support. Super-users were volunteers who, for the most part,were given both prosecutor and administrative national training courses.This was an additionalresponsibility on top of the day job as opposed to a formal role.There is little doubt thatsuper-users fulfiled a valuable purpose in 2003 and 2004 in supporting staff that neededfurther assistance.

6.48 While some diminution of the role is to be expected as users become more experienced,in many Areas the role has ceased to exist as a pro-active value-adding function. It wasevident that where the role is still being carried out pro-actively, so the unit or Area isbenefiting and generally performance and satisfaction levels are higher.We encountered unitswithout super-users and Areas without super-users in certain roles, and a large proportion ofinterviewees were unaware of who their expert was. A number of factors have contributedto the demise of the role including staff moves and reductions in time spent in the office.

6.49 It is not easy to ensure that all staff attend training on new releases of the system andtherefore some form of local support mechanism is desirable if all the potential benefits areto be obtained. In too many cases it is ‘hit and miss’ whether staff become aware of new or improved functionality and this contributes to some misconceptions about the system.The level of knowledge of the system capability needs to be higher and this is unlikely tooccur with the current informal approaches.

6.50 In some Areas, CRMs are helping to fill the void and supplementing the Steria-providedtraining, although this varies from Area to Area, in part because the role of super-users has diminished.

RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that managers should re-invigorate local CMS support mechanisms.Local Implementation Teams (or equivalent) need to become more effective andconsideration should be given to formalising the role of super-users.The focus shouldbe on delivering more structured and effective systems for :

• identifying opportunities to improve the system;

• ensuring that staff are aware of changes to the system;

• sharing knowledge and good practice;

• providing pro-active individual support; and

• improving the realisation of potential benefits.

33


34


7 DOES COMPASS CMS SUSTAIN CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT

OF CPS BUSINESS?

Overview7.1 The implementation of CMS across the CPS Areas is a significant achievement and provides

a framework for delivering a national case management system that can be managed pro-actively to take account of changes brought about by the CPS, the criminal justiceagencies or the Government.

7.2 It is recognised that the CPS operates in an environment where there is a considerable amountof change, over much of which they have limited control. Compass CMS has the capability tobe of assistance in implementing and adapting to change; however, our findings suggest thatthere is scope for improvement in how the technology is used to minimise the impact ofchange.We acknowledge that existing funding arrangements for CMS can contribute to somedelays as development work has to be prioritised. At the present time there is a somewhatdisjointed approach to ensuring that system development keeps pace with change; this is morerelated to finance, structures and communication, than the ability of CMS.

7.3 Significant efforts have been made by the CPS with regard to inter-agency IT issues.There have been pilots for connecting to the police NSPIS and NICHE systems. It isanticipated that this will bring a significant reduction in the duplication of data entry, althoughthe full assessment of the actual level of benefits has yet to be completed.The CPS is wellpositioned to take advantage of any benefits accruing from the interface with the new courts’IT systems (LIBRA and PROGRESS), although, again, it is not yet possible to assess the level ofbenefit that will be available.

7.4 There are a number of examples where having a single national IT system has been of someassistance, including: a single system for interface with other agencies; cost savings achieved bythe shutdown of multiple legacy systems; a national Performance Indicator (PI) system withautomated hand-off of data to other IT systems; and the ability to update centrally inappropriate circumstances.

7.5 In more instances than desirable, CMS has not been fully updated with changes brought about by the implementation of new/revised legislation. In most cases the potential benefitshave not been maximised due to delays between legislation being enacted and the technologybeing updated. In some cases this can be affected by the necessary IT development lead time(six-nine months) and the speed with which some changes are delivered. In other situations,more could have been done to support users cope with changes.

7.6 There is a need to strengthen the planning process for major initiatives to ensure that IT isconsidered at the inception of projects and not at some subsequent stage.Victim and witnesscare IT processes in particular would benefit from a more holistic approach.

7.7 Whilst most Areas felt that CMS ought to lead to greater standardisation of processes andsharing of good practice, few specific examples of such outcomes were forthcoming.

35


7.8 There are structured processes for designing, testing and implementing new versions of CMS.Good systems are in place that allow users to contribute to future development activity, albeittoo many Areas have failed to take full advantage of this facility. The most recent release ofCMS (6 July 2006) has addressed a number of issues that were raised as concerns byindividuals during inspection. Hopefully this will remove some more of the barriers to usageand encourage staff to raise other issues of concern with greater confidence thatimprovements will result.

7.9 The flexibility of CMS/MIS has proved useful in supporting a number of Areas during re-structuring, both in terms of providing management information to inform decision-making,and due to the comparative ease with which the system can be re-configured.

Implementing legislative change7.10 Staff could identify instances where CMS is helpful to them in dealing with legislative change.

The most common example was pre-charge decision-making, where access to structuredelectronic files and MG3 forms has been of benefit. However, even then there were somenegative views based on issues such as the speed of the system at charging centres; noelectronic system prior to April 2004; and the fact that some aspects of the pre-chargescreens were not user-friendly (system upgraded in July 2006).

7.11 There were also examples whereby later versions of the system had been updated to takeaccount of new legislation, but not until some time after the law had been changed.Examples included new offences under the Sexual Offences Act; templates to supportdisclosure, hearsay and bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003; and precedents forthe Proceeds of Crime Act.

7.12 We acknowledge that some legislative changes are implemented to timescales that areincompatible with CMS development schedules, and therefore impossible to meet.We also recognise that some legislative change requires considerable coding and developmentwork. However, some aspects could be updated quickly with minimal effort.We have alreadyraised the issue of the need to improve the management of templates in Chapter 5.The CPS receives 11 CDs per year with updates from the Police National Legal Database,but during 2006, only one had been uploaded onto CMS (CPS perception that data is not100% accurate). Clearly there are opportunities to improve this process.

7.13 These factors combined contributed to staff perceptions that CMS could not keep pace with thescale of change currently taking place. In our questionnaires only 24% of staff agreed with theproposition that ‘CMS assists in complying with the requirements of legislative change’. Duringinterviews staff gave more positive examples of how the system can and does help with legislativeissues, but the benefits are severely undermined by perceptions over the time lags involved.

7.14 There have been issues around ownership for ensuring that IT is taken into account whenconsidering legislative change. Liaison with CPSHeadquarters Policy Directorate has improved butstill needs further work to ensure that as much progress as possible is made before new legislationis enacted.This may mean that relevant representatives of operational management need to be heldaccountable for ensuring that IT is considered properly and quickly when implementing change.

36


7.15 We were encouraged to note the work being undertaken to the November 2006 release ofCMS in preparation for implementation of the Violent Crimes Reduction Act and furtherchanges brought about by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Regrettably, it is possible that some ofthis work may be in vain as some of the proposed changes may not go ahead to envisagedtimescales for reasons outside the control of the CPS.

7.16 Managers (locally and nationally) are able to use CMS and MIS to monitor compliance withmany legislative changes. Effective use of the ‘flagging’ facilities enables good qualitymanagement information to be extracted from the system(s) to help drive performanceimprovements where necessary.

RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that the process for implementing legislative change should beimproved to ensure that updates are made to the system before the changes becomelaw, whenever timescales permit.

CPS/CJS initiatives7.17 Generally, the concern expressed above with regard to delays in updating the systems also

hold true for implementing initiatives. Development of CMS and MIS to support the businessin managing such changes has tended to happen too late in the planning cycle.

7.18 Some significant national and criminal justice system (CJS) initiatives have been rolled-outwithout the technology to support them. For example, the Effective Trial ManagementProgramme (ETMP) has been around for two years in various stages of implementation,but there is currently little by way of assistance to CPS staff in existing versions of CMS.Much case progression work is done manually, or with the help of stand-alone spreadsheetsand trackers.We are pleased to note that an interface with a court case progression ITpackage (PROGRESS) is planned for November 2006.

7.19 Similarly, the No Witness, No Justice programme and latterly the Victims’ Code are not fullysupported by effective IT. Despite the inter-agency nature of victim and witness issues it hasbeen left for the CPS to deliver some IT solutions on behalf of the Criminal JusticeInformation Technology (CJIT) group. Against this background, some delays are understandable.

7.20 The work that has been undertaken on developing victim and witness-related IT solutions shouldhave been more integrated.The development of the Witness Management System (WMS) is byitself an achievement, but it has not followed standard CMS planning, testing and support practices,and as such, it is not being used effectively as yet.There are issues of compatibility as to theinformation required by the two systems that can lead to some difficulties - for example we foundthat many cases had not been finalised in WMS because actions had not been carried out in CMS(the actions were not necessary for the case to be progressed and finalised in CMS).There werealso issues as to which witnesses should be entered into the respective systems as the needs wereagain different. Most of the work has been marshalled through the No Witness, No Justice projectteam, and the standing down of that group in September 2006 presents both a risk and anopportunity.The CPS needs to ensure that a holistic approach is taken to developing victim andwitness strategies that takes full account of IT requirements to support delivery.

37


7.21 There is a need to clarify and improve ownership for delivering IT to support new initiatives.For each initiative, there should be a clearly defined responsibility for identification of IT issues.Business Information Systems and LogicaCMG should be delivering against a specificationprovided by the ‘business’.Wherever possible planning needs to take account of the lead timefor CMS/MIS development.

7.22 There is also some work to do in improving management information to monitor theprogress of some initiatives, particularly those related to victims and witnesses, and theEffective Trial Management Programme. Management information requirements should bedefined as an integral part of the planning process.

RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that there should be a more holistic approach to implementinginitiatives, particularly those involving other criminal justice agencies, to ensure that:

• all aspects of processes, system changes and management informationrequirements are considered as part of project initiation; and

• compatibility with other initiatives and IT systems is considered.

Implementing new releases of CMS7.23 There are well established processes for designing, testing and implementing new releases of

CMS. Since the original system was rolled-out in 2003, there have been two upgrades eachyear to deliver enhancements and new functionality.

7.24 Testing has been effective in identifying potential glitches, resulting in minimal changes beingrequired after the new versions have been released.

7.25 Releases need to take account of legislative changes, business initiatives and user feedback.Whilstit is understandable that legislation and initiatives require the majority of development resource,it is commendable that approximately 30% of all changes are as a direct result of user feedback.

7.26 Responsibilities for prioritising development work are understood and there has usually beengood levels of communication and co-operation between the various groups who contributeto the development of new releases. Business analysts (from BIS), the User Advisory Group(UAG) and the Business Design Authority (BDA) consult to agree a User RequirementSpecification (URS) that is given to LogicaCMG to plan and cost the release.This leads to theprovision of a ‘Functional Specification’ that is sent back to the CPS groups for approval.The BDA has ultimate responsibility for ‘signing off ’ the content of any release, followingappropriate consultation with user and business representatives.

7.27 Occasionally time pressures have inhibited some groups from making a full contribution,particularly if the specification is not ready until late in the process. Similarly, time pressuresoccasionally prohibit changes suggested during testing from being adopted. At such times it isimportant that effective communication takes place to explain the reasons why suggestionshave not been accepted.These are particular concerns for the UAG, whose ability to addvalue is undermined if they do not have sufficient time to make the best possible contribution.

38


7.28 There was also evidence of some disquiet expressed by the UAG over a lack of consultationon some last minute alterations to the latest development.This needs to be resolved quicklyas user input is a vital component for success and it is important that the confidence of usergroups is maintained.We understand that this has been discussed at a recent BDA meeting.

7.29 The process has generally worked well within the constraints under which it operates.One disappointing aspect is the low level of participation by many Areas in identifying systemenhancements through the formal Issues Log process.Whilst it is to be expected that thenumber of issues will diminish over time, some Areas have not raised any since 2003 (in theAreas visited the number of issues raised varied between none and 36 - national average 24).It was quite clear during our on-site interviews that some staff have opted out of the processin the hope that: the problem will go away; someone else will raise the issue; or the CustomerRelationship Manager (CRM) will know about any issues. Others were unaware of the process.We were told of numerous bugbears or ideas for improvement that have never been formallyraised.This could lead to missed opportunities.

7.30 Some enhancements have been implemented without using the established procedures (for example non-involvement of UAG) and this has resulted in difficulties.The WitnessManagement System and new 2006-07 CMS Usage Statistics are examples whereby not usingthe normal development practices has led to less than satisfactory results.While some flexibilitymay be acceptable, alternative systems should follow key disciplines of standard procedures.

Management information to support improvement7.31 In our Thematic Review on The Use of Performance Information in the CPS (published

September 2005) we concluded that CMS and MIS had delivered a capability to manageperformance nationally for the first time. Most recommendations were designed to bringabout improvements in harnessing the potential benefits of the enhanced capability.Our findings from this inspection indicate that further progress has been made.

7.32 A national regime of performance measures is in place with a number of the measuressupported by MIS data. On a local level we also saw evidence of improved confidence in theuse of performance data from within CMS and MIS. All of the Areas visited were using thesystems in some way or another to extract information to inform them of their localperformance.There is still variability as to the level of usage and scope for ongoingimprovement, but on the whole the organisation is moving forward.

7.33 Not all managers are fully aware of how much the system can assist them in day-to-daymanagement of their unit/Area. A number of them expressed the view that they had receivedinsufficient training on this subject and recognised that they were probably not using thesystem to optimum levels.We received mixed reviews on the ‘CMS for managers’ training,although it was generally better received when delivered by CRMs. Increased knowledge levelsof senior managers of CMS/MIS capability is to be encouraged as it should lead to betterdirection and focus that will ensure that more of the potential benefits can be achieved.

39


7.34 Other criminal justice system agencies are also receiving benefit from the increased capabilityof the CPS to provide performance information.This is particularly true with regard to pre-charge advice, where the Prosecution Team Performance Management (PTPM) data canidentify trends and strengths and weaknesses of performance at a range of different levels.This can be used to drive up results.

Managing processes and structures7.35 There is no doubt that the flexibility of CMS is of benefit when assessing whether Area

structures are ‘fit for purpose’. A number of the Areas visited had undertaken some form ofstructural review, and all of them commented positively on how CMS had helped in the process.

7.36 Examples seen included: profiling Area business volumes by unit and case type to look for theright combinations, with resource allocation adjusted accordingly; moves from the Glidewellstructure of Trials Units and Criminal Justice Units to combined units; and ascertaining viabilityof smaller units.

7.37 The same flexibility exists for MIS and the Area Performance Review Group had alreadydeveloped a basic template for how performance information might be amalgamated andreported if police reform had gone ahead.

7.38 The CPS is undoubtedly better positioned now to cope with structural changes than it hasbeen in the past.

7.39 Prior to implementing CMS, many Areas had little by way of documented processes andsystems. Part of the duties of the Local Implementation Team was to produce process mapsfor the new processes.This delivered some benefits early on although, regrettably, the goodwork has not always been continued as new releases and initiatives have been implemented.

7.40 The implementation of a single national case management system should deliver a morestandard means of processing transactions. Most interviewees considered that some processeswere now more standardised, although it was accepted that some, such as committalpreparation, still varied widely. There is a fine balance between a flexible system that takesaccount of legitimate local requirements, and one that enables individuals to opt-out of using thesystem as it is intended to be used.We saw evidence that there has been gradual improvementswith Areas beginning to implement a more standard approach to particular aspects of a case.

7.41 The inconsistency of use at the present time is such that, whilst CMS is capable of being asingle national casework system, it is not yet truly used in such a way. An important step inmaximising the benefits of the system is an effective process of capturing and disseminatinggood practice.There is still some way to go before this is achieved, although a nationalcommittee is actively looking at how this might be achieved.

40


ANNEX A - THE INSPECTION FRAMEWORK

41


HAS ADOPTING COMPASS CMS CONTRIBUTED TO IMPROVEMENTS IN REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING?

Has CMS led to improvements in systems and processes for casework review and decision-making?

Have revisions been made in review processes specifically to bring about improvements in the timeliness and quality of review and decision-making?

Has appropriate training and guidance been given to staff in the processes changes brought about by the move to CMS?

Is the functionality of CMS fit for purpose in ensuring timely, quality decision-making?

Has CMS resulted in a more consistent approach to the decision-making process across the Area?

Have CMS updates and new releases had a positive impact on decision-making processes?

Does CMS support greater case ownership and continuity?

Are task lists effective in prompting review case actions?

Are review and casework decisions comprehensively recorded using CMS?

Is guidance provided which sets out the details and information required for a comprehensive review note?

Have lawyers and caseworkers been given guidance and training on the use of CMS for recording review and casework decisions at the various stages of review?

Are prosecutors set objectives/targets in respect of recording reviews on CMS?

Are pre-charge decisions comprehensively recorded by duty prosecutors using the CMS-generated MG3 and MG3a forms?

Are initial review decisions comprehensively recorded by prosecutors using CMS?

Is summary trial review comprehensively recorded on CMS including any ancillary considerations such as acceptable pleas?

Is committal review comprehensively recorded on CMS including an analysis of the evidence and instructions on any ancillary considerations such as acceptable pleas?

Are there any barriers to the optimum use of CMS for recording review and decision-making?

Does the access to electronic case information assist prosecutors improve review and decision-making?

Do managers use CMS to control and monitor file allocation so as to ensure that cases are dealt with by prosecutors of appropriate experience?

Does the access to electronic information lead to any efficiency savings in the review process?

Does the access to electronic information lead to improved timeliness of review?

Does the access to electronic information lead to better informed casework decisions?

Does the access to electronic information lead to greater accountability in decision-making?

Does the ability to access immediate information on other related cases for the same defendant(s) assist the review and decision-making process?

Does the access to electronic information assist managers in the fair and efficient distribution of workload?

Has CMS led to improvements in the assessment of the quality and timeliness of review and decision-making?

Do managers and those assessing casework believe CMS and MIS are effective tools for monitoring review quality?

Does the ability to monitor casework tasks using CMS lead to improvement in the quality and timeliness of review and decision-making?

Has the use of CMS allowed managers to focus better on monitoring casework?

Has the ability to select files electronically assisted managers in their monitoring of the quality of review and decision-making?

Does the system provide the right information to assist in assessing the quality and timeliness of decision-making?

Is it easier to assess a file since CMS has been introduced?

HAS THE USE OF COMPASS CMS IMPROVED THE QUALITY AND TIMELINESS OF CPS CASEWORK?

2 3 LevelLevel41

42


Does CMS meet the needs of the local organisational structure?

Can staff access electronic files on CMS from all appropriate locations?

Do staff input into and update CMS from all locations?

Do contested cases pass smoothly through the system?

Do committed cases pass smoothly through the system?

Do sent cases pass smoothly through the system?

Are inter unit-transfers simple and effective?

Does the system match the stages of magistrates' courts' case progression?

Does the system match logically the stages of Crown Court cases?

Do PIs reflect accurately work done by individual units e.g. discharged committals?

Is advice work attributed appropriately?

Does CMS information cater for non-standard structures e.g. contested units?

HAS CMS LED TO IMPROVED CASE HANDLING AND PROGRESSION ACROSS THE VARIOUS STRUCTURES AND ROLES WITHIN THE CPS?

Is management information available to reflect local organisation structure?

Do staff have access to terminals at the right locations?

Are alternative systems being used to monitor/track cases because of Area structures/file flows?

Is the flow of the transaction through the life of the case easy to manage in the system?

Does CMS help managers monitor and control case handling and progression?

Are there functions of the system that are particularly good?

Are there functions of the system that need improvement?

Are there things that the system can not currently do that need to be added?

Are there functions that you are required to do that do not add value?

Are there any barriers to using parts of the system?

Does the Area use any other systems to monitor cases and progression (manual or automated) – not related to access?

Are Area staff aware of and using the process for raising functionality issues?

Is movement between screens logical?

Are reports and information easy to get?

Is the terminology used in the system appropriate?

Are there system processes that are particularly easy to use?

Could any processes be simplified?

Are there any parts of the system that are not used because they are too difficult?

Are parts of the system consistently fast to use?

Are parts of system overly time-consuming?

Has technology led to a reduction of manual tasks?

Has the system automated some tasks?

Are there tasks you can now do that were previously too time-consuming?

Does access to electronic information save time?

Do task lists give useful information to managers?

Does the information stored within individual electronic case files assist in monitoring and improving case management and progression?

Do CMS and MIS reports help managers understand performance and identify improvement opportunities?

Do managers trust the information provided by the system?

Are there CMS/MIS reports that are particularly helpful?

Does CMS/MIS provide all the useful information that managers require to improve case management and progression?

Does the system have the right functionality?

Is CMS easy to use and navigate?

Does CMS/MIS save time for managers?

2 3 LevelLevel4 5

43


Does CMS assist prosecutors to manage and progress their caseload?



Are there things that the system cannot currently do that need to be added?




Are prosecutors aware of and using the process for raising functionality issues?

Is movement between screens logical?





Does the system prompt prosecutors in such a way as to improve case progression?






Does access to electronic information save time?

Do prosecutors trust the information provided by the system?

Are templates/information stored in system of a high quality?

Is information held within the system reliable and accurate?

HAS CMS LED TO IMPROVED CASE HANDLING AND PROGRESSION ACROSS THE VARIOUS STRUCTURES AND ROLES WITHIN THE CPS? (continued)

Is the system information reliable?

Is the CMS functionality good for prosecutors?

Is the system user-friendly?

Is the system time efficient for prosecutors?

Does CMS enable administrators to progress cases effectively?






Does the Area use any other systems to monitor casesand progression (manual or automated) – not related to access?

Are administrators aware of and using the process for raising functionality issues?

Is progression through the screens logical?

Does the system prompt you to complete all necessary case progression information?










Is the system functionality good for administrators?


Is the system time efficient for admin?

2 3 LevelLevel4 5

44


Does CMS assist caseworkers to manage and progress cases?







Are caseworkers aware of and using the process for raising functionality issues?

Does the system prompt caseworkers in such a way as to improve case progression?

Is movement of cases through system logical and easy to follow?

Is required information easy to find?










Do caseworkers trust the information provided by the system?

Are templates/information stored in the system of a high quality?

Is information stored within the system accurate e.g. list of charges/offences?

HAS CMS LED TO IMPROVED CASE HANDLING AND PROGRESSION ACROSS THE VARIOUS STRUCTURES AND ROLES WITHIN THE CPS? (continued)

Is the system information reliable?

Is the system functionality good for caseworkers?


Is the system time efficient for caseworkers?

2 3 LevelLevel4 5

45


Have the Headquarters functions (BIS/BDD) been successful in preparing and supporting Areas?

HAS THE APPROACH TO CHANGE MANAGEMENT BEEN EFFECTIVE IN INTEGRATING COMPASS CMS INTO AREA CORE BUSINESS?

Did Areas understand the full magnitude of the changes?

Have stakeholders been appropriately consulted?

Is there a robust system for soliciting user feedback?

Has there been effective discussion with Unions?

Is the national user group involved in communications with the Area?

Have CPS staff been kept informed of progress?

Are a variety of communications channels used?

Was there an effective evaluation of pilots?

Was there any interim evaluation during roll-out?

Are the twice-yearly updates evaluated appropriately?

Is there effective testing of new releases?

Has training, mentoring and guidance been provided to the LITs?

Was guidance on process mapping and re-engineering provided to LITS?

Do LITs have sufficient authority to effect change locally?

Does the programme assess for any IT skills gaps in Areas?

Are IT foundation courses available in the right time frame?

Did the programme undertake a readiness assessment before rolling-out CMS to specific Areas?

Have all LITs integrated Compass CMS processes into mainstream working?

Was central support effective?

Has the communication from Headquarters functions been suitable?

Is there an effective process for testing and evaluating individual releases of CMS?

Was the national programme pro-active in preparing Areas to execute change?

Have Areas been provided with practical ongoing support by the programme?

Have Customer Relationship Managers been skilled and effective?

Has the National User Group been effective?

Are super-users sufficiently skilled and supported to be effective?

Are the training modules and support documentation effective?

Is deskside assistance provided timely to recently trained staff in all disciplines?

Does Compass CMS functionality meet CPS business rules?

Is Compass CMS usage mandatory at Area level?

Do all relevant staff disciplines have appropriate Compass CMS usage objectives in Forward Job Plans?

Are there robust systems for collecting and analysing performance data – including balanced scorecard and benefits realisation?

Are the right measures used for each discipline?

Is the selection of performance measures influenced by Compass CMS system capability?

Are any changes in performance measures planned – e.g.new scorecard?

Are Service Desk staff sufficiently skilled to resolve CMS enquiries?

Is the timeliness of problem resolution satisfactory?

Is there a formal process to evaluate the staffing levels and hours of operation to be provided?

Are appropriate performance standards in place - SLA?

Is the Help Desk service meeting its performance targets?

Are there clear guidelines as to the type of queries to be referred to the Service Desk?

Is the response time of the Compass CMS infrastructure network sufficient from all work locations?

Is there an effective process for evaluating infrastructure capability?

Is there sufficient staff access to CMS and MIS in CPS offices?

Is there sufficient staff access to CMS in all work locations?

Are Compass CMS performance measures sufficiently indicative to give assurance of appropriate usage and benefits realisation?

Does the Service Desk provide effective support?

Does Compass CMS availability meet the requirements of CPS business users?

2 3 LevelLevel4 5

46


Have Areas been successful in embedding Compass CMS into core business?

Was an effective LIT established?

Has the LIT had sufficient authority?

Were terms of reference agreed by Area management?

Have Area management been represented on the LIT?

Have all senior managers been supportive of the LIT’s work?

Have all staff disciplines been represented on the LIT?

Did the LIT understand the full scope of their job?

Was a timely LIT project plan produced?

Are LIT/Area staff allocated sufficient time to deal with CMS issues?

Were existing working practices well documented?

Has the Area produced revised process maps for existing processes?

Is there consensus over which discipline is responsible for each aspect of the processes?

Has the Area been successful in mapping new Compass CMS-based processes?

Have staff been able to influence the content of new business processes?

Do the revised processes work equally well in all units?

Is Compass CMS now integrated into mainstream Area work?

Has the LIT been active over the last year?

Has process mapping led to a more standard approach throughout the units?

Did staff understand the magnitude of the changes involved in adopting Compass CMS?

Are all staff kept up-to-date with progress – including change requests?

Were DTUS representatives consulted over the proposed

changes to working practices?

Are the changes to Area practices communicated to stakeholders?

Is a systematic means of obtaining staff feedback used?

Is the feedback from staff used appropriately?

Was a staff IT skills audit conducted as part of the original implementation plan?

Are necessary IT foundation skills training in place prior to Compass CMS training?

Have all staff disciplines received adequate Compass CMS training?

Has release update training been satisfactory?

Are there instances where staff have not been able to adapt to Compass CMS working?

Overall is Area business more efficient and effective with Compass CMS?

HAS THE APPROACH TO CHANGE MANAGEMENT BEEN EFFECTIVE IN INTEGRATING COMPASS CMS INTO AREA CORE BUSINESS? (continued)

Have Areas been effective in skilling staff for new working practices?

Have governance arrangements been satisfactory?

Do Areas use a recognised approach for process mapping and re-design?

Did Areas have an effective communications strategy?

Has sufficient deskside assistance been provided to staff after the 'go live' date?

Are super-users effective in supporting all grades of staff?

Has support/guidance documentation been sufficient to assist staff?

Are the methods for reporting and resolving issues effective?

Did the LIT consider appropriate performance measures?

Have the business performance measures used been suited to business needs?

Have any revisions been made to performance measures?

Do staff have appropriate Compass CMS usage objectives in their Forward Job Plans?

Is the Service Desk effective in resolving CMS enquiries?

Is the service available at times required by CPS Areas?

Is the timeliness of Service Desk problem resolution satisfactory?

Is the Compass CMS service reliable and responsive at all work locations used by CPS staff?

Is there sufficient staff access to CMS in all work locations?

Is there sufficient staff access to CMS and MIS in CPS offices?

Does Compass CMS availability meet the requirements of CPS business users?

Has effective staff support been provided?

Have appropriate performance measures been developed?

Does the Service Desk support meet Area needs?

2 3 LevelLevel4 5

47


Has Compass CMS been effective in assisting the implementation and ongoing management of legislative change, e.g. charging, POCA, CJA, Sexual Offences Act?

Does Compass CMS assist in the development and delivery of national initiatives, e.g. ETPM, NWNJ/Witness Care, and Performance Management?

Is legislative-specific functionality satisfactory?

Is legislative reference information embedded in CMS appropriate to the task?

Was training/guidance content sufficient for staff to be effective?

Is legislative change implemented more quickly through the use of Compass CMS?

Are staff using Compass CMS more aware of legislative change?

Are relevant legislative templates provided/easily adapted?

Can Headquarters and local managers provide better assurance that legislative changes are being applied appropriately to cases by staff?

Can managers readily identify cases associated with legislative change?

Does Compass CMS/MIS provide essential performance information to show success or otherwise with legislative change?

Does Compass CMS improve inter-working with the police and courts?

Has the clarity of information provided to external professionals improved (Defence solicitors, Agents, Counsel)?

Is more accurate and timely performance information provided with Compass CMS?

Has Compass CMS led to any economies in inter-agency working on legislative issues?

Is electronic information exchanged between agencies effectively?

Is Compass CMS influencing CPS policy development for new initiatives?

Does CMS figure prominently in initiative business cases?

Has the success of new initiatives depended significantly on the use of Compass CMS?

Are there examples of recent initiatives which have not used Compass CMS functionality?

DOES COMPASS CMS SUSTAIN CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT OF CPS BUSINESS?

Is the functional capability of Compass CMS instrumental in identifying new national initiatives?

Does having established Compass CMS-based processes ease the tasks of implementing legislative change?

Does Compass CMS assist managers in monitoring and assuring the application of legislative change?

Does Compass CMS improve legislative inter-agency working?

Can new/revised business processes be introduced speedily using Compass CMS?

Can templates be easily introduced/adapted to address new initiatives?

Has suitable additional functionality been made available to assist with initiatives?

Has training/guidance content been sufficient for staff tobe effective?

Are staff more aware of how new initiatives affect their role with the use of Compass CMS?

Does Compass CMS improve inter-working with the police and courts?

Do other agency staff use Compass CMS?

Has Compass CMS reduced work duplication?

Is there effective electronic information exchange between CJS Agencies?

Is information provision more accurate with Compass CMS?

Is information provided more timely with Compass CMS?

Do nationally designed reports provide managers with the information they need?

Do reports enable managers to take corrective action?

Do locally designed reports provide more relevant information?

Can Area staff access information in suitable timescales?

Is the process of introducing new initiatives simplified by Compass CMS?

Does Compass CMS improve inter-agency working on new initiatives?

Does Compass CMS/MIS provide managers with the right information to confirm new initiatives are succeeding?

2 3 LevelLevel4 5

48


Does Compass CMS facilitate ongoing business improvement?

Do the majority of Area case-related working practices involve the use of Compass CMS?

Has Compass CMS had a significant effect in reducing manual systems?

Are there aspects of Compass CMS functionality that are specifically avoided with use being made of alternative approaches?

Is staff induction for all disciplines more effective with Compass CMS?

Is there a formal process for sharing ‘good practice’?

Has the implementation of Compass CMS standardised business processes within the Area?

With Compass CMS are units more active in suggesting business improvements?

Are Area units free to implement their own local business improvement changes within Compass CMS?

Does the Area have an effective means of co-ordinating change across the Area?

Is the process for suggesting changes to the national team effective?

Do changes implemented nationally reflect Area needs?

Are changes to Compass CMS communicated effectively?

Is training/guidance supporting Compass CMS releases and changes adequate?

Are change requests from Areas handled in a timely way?

Are change requests from Areas prioritised appropriately?

Are any necessary error corrections timely, e.g. CTL calculation?

Area Areas kept informed of progress on suggested changes?

Do managers of all disciplines use Compass CMS/MIS to evaluate the effectiveness of their units?

Is Compass CMS/MIS seen by managers as the 'engine' for Area improvement?

Has Compass CMS provided managers with more insight into work quality?

Has Compass CMS provided managers with more oversight of staff loading?

Is Compass CMS/MIS business performance information routinely communicated to staff?

Do staff have Compass CMS usage objectives in their Forward Job Plans?

Are allocated usage objectives considered to be relevant to outcome performance?

Are Area teams processing more work per month with Compass CMS?

Is the use of Compass CMS efficient in executing work?

Could case handling staff do their jobs as effectively without Compass CMS?

DOES COMPASS CMS SUSTAIN CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT OF CPS BUSINESS? (continued)

Is Compass CMS/MIS information used to determine Area effectiveness?

Does Compass CMS incorporate the majority of the Area’s business methods?

Does Compass CMS facilitate the introduction and standardisation of good practice?

Is there an effective process for implementing system enhancements?

Do Compass CMS-based processes make it easier to merge Area units?

Does Compass CMS assist in creating new Area units?

Does Compass CMS make it easier to re-allocate work between units?

Has the implementation of Compass CMS standardised business processes across units and/or CPS Areas?

Will Compass CMS make it easier to merge two or more CPS Areas?

Can performance information be correctly attributed for merged CPS Areas?

Would there be a lot of work involved in re-working business processes if CPS Areas merged?

Does Compass CMS ease the transition to new CPS business structures?

2 3 LevelLevel4 5

ANNEX B - QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

The thematic report on the Compass case management system (CMS) wished to determine if theuse of CMS has improved the quality and timeliness of CPS casework.To supplement informationgathered during interviews we also conducted a survey to ascertain staff views on the impact ofintroducing CMS.

Most staff in the eight Areas that we visited were sent role-based questionnaires, which aimed tocapture their experience and use of the system. Questionnaires were also sent to all CPS Areas forChief Crown Prosecutors (CCPs)/Area Business Managers (ABMs) and the Chairs of the LocalImplementation Teams (LITs).

Each questionnaire put forward a number of propositions in the form of statements to which therespondent was asked to express their strength of opinion i.e. Strongly Agree,Tend to Agree,Neutral,Tend to Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Recipients were asked to expand on their response inmore detail if they wished. For the purposes of the graphs in this annex the five categories ofresponse have been reduced to three by combining ‘strongly agree’ and ‘tend to agree’ and similarly‘tend to disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’. In many instances the same question, making appropriateadjustment to the nature of the role, was included in more than one questionnaire to testperceptions at different levels.

The CPS conducts its own regular surveys, but the methodology and the target audience aresomewhat different. In most cases where a comparison can be made, the CPS results are morepositive than our own findings.This will be partly attributable to the type of question asked; the CPSsurveys tend to monitor satisfaction, whereas our questionnaires were seeking to find where CMShad made a positive impact. It is therefore possible that some respondents who are ‘neutral’ on oursurvey would score as ‘satisfied’ in the CPS research.There was also a different breakdown by role -we had a higher ratio of prosecutor responses than is normally the case with the CPS programme.We had a lot of responses from West Midlands and therefore we have checked to ensure that theydo not unduly influence the results.There are a few instances where West Midlands prosecutors areless positive than other Areas, and a few where level B managers are more positive. Overall, theyhave not significantly changed the overall findings.

Whilst it is not easy to make direct comparisons with CPS data there is some correlation in generalterms. For example, in both surveys administrative staff are most satisfied, with prosecutorssignificantly less content.

In addition to specific themed questions, the same three open questions were asked of all staff toelicit opinions on the following: what aspect of their work is done more effectively with CMS, whatare the three main barriers preventing more effective use of CMS and what are the main changesthey would like to introduce to CMS?

The following graphs indicate the findings to some of the key issues that we were assessing.We havemainly used overall results, but have also indicated the range of responses from different groups - insome cases graphs show response by role.We have also made comments within the text of thereport that draw on survey responses.The survey was conducted prior to the latest release of CMS(Jul 2006); some issues raised by respondents have been addressed in the update.

49


Questionnaire Response rate

The response rate varied between grades - in percentage terms it was highest from CCPs/ABMsand LIT Chairs, but significantly lower from prosecutors, caseworkers and administrators.

Role Total sent out Other of Total Number Percentageto eight Areas 42 Areas sent out responding response

CCP/ABM 8 34 42 29 69.1

LIT 8 34 42 31 73.8

Unit Head/Team Leader 54 - 54 22 40.7

Prosecutors 417 - 417 89 21.3

Unit Business Managers 91 - 91 43 47.3

Caseworkers 189 - 189 40 21.2

Administrators 345 - 345 67 19.4

Typists 60 - 60 22 36.7

Total 1,172 68 1,240 343 27.7

‘CMS has made me/the Area/the Unit more efficient’

This proposition was put to all roles and 326 responses were received.

Overall, 59.5% of respondents positively agreed and 12.9% disagreed. Data ranged between 33.3%and 77.4% positively agreeing.

It can be seen from the chart above that prosecutors and typists were significantly less satisfied thanother grades. In the case of typists concerns centre around the ease of use of the system (comparedunfavourably with MS Word). Some of the prosecutors’ issues are exacerbated by low levels ofgeneral IT literacy. Overall an encouraging result, albeit further work is clearly required to win thehearts and minds of some users.

50


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree

6 7 28 50 9

CCP/ABM

LIT Chair

Unit Head

Prosecutor

UBM/Admin Mgr

Caseworker

Administrator

Typist

76.716.76.7

28.6 38.1 33.3

60.9

45.5

34.4

Disagree Neutral Agree

66.720.5

45.5

4.7

12.8

63.229.07.9

50.624.724.7

9.1

77.419.43.2

All roles collated (percentages)

Role specific (percentages)

‘CMS matches the needs of my role’

The proposition was put to prosecutors, caseworkers, administrators and typists and 217 replieswere received.

Overall 65.9% positively agreed that CMS matches their role and only 15.2% disagreed.There was arange of results across the grades with the most positive being the administrators with 88.6%agreeing compared to 56.2% of prosecutors.

Those who most actively disagreed were the typists at 31.8%, although 63.6% agreed and they hadless neutral answers.

Again, this is a result that is promising. For prosecutors there are some opportunities to improvesatisfaction through better functionality, for example task lists. Improving templates will have someimpact on typists, but overcoming the perception that CMS is not as easy to use or reliable as MS Word is a challenge.

‘CMS has clarified roles and responsibilities in casework completion’

Of the 249 responses received 22.1% agreed and 27.3% disagreed.The majority of staff were neutralat 50.6%.

There were significant differences between roles. UBMs/Admin Managers were the most positivewith 45% agreeing but prosecutors and caseworkers were much less positive.This may be anexample of one of the disadvantages of making the system so flexible.A more standard approach toCMS processes would lead to greater clarity of roles. A number of Areas have also been involved inre-structures recently and this may add to the confusion felt by some staff.

51


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree

5 10 19 52 14

UBM/Admin Mgr

Prosecutor

Caseworker

Administrator

Typist

All roles collated

45.042.512.5

18.4


22.150.6

34.2

27.3

15.857.926.3

24.663.112.3

47.4

12.650.636.8


Role specific andall roles collated (percentages)

Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree

5 10 19 52 14

UBM/Admin Mgr

Prosecutor

Caseworker

Administrator

Typist

All roles collated

45.042.512.5

18.4


22.150.6

34.2

27.3

15.857.926.3

24.663.112.3

47.4

12.650.636.8


Role specific andall roles collated (percentages)

‘National training has been suitable for our needs/the needs of our job’

The proposition was put to all roles and 340 replies were received. Overall 49.4% agreed, 24.7%disagreed and 25.9% were neutral.

The UBMs/Admin Managers and administrators were most positive with 64.3% and 62.7% agreeingrespectively.

The Unit Heads/Team Leaders were significantly less positive with 36.4% agreeing and 18.2%disagreeing. Lawyers, caseworkers and typists were also significantly less positive.The recent move toa higher level of role-based modular training supported by e-learning should improve the satisfactionratings as this mode of development was preferred by many staff at interview.

There is still a need to ensure that staff are appropriately trained on changes to CMS as part of thebi-annual upgrade process.

‘Basic IT skills courses have been available to staff before CMS training (e.g. keyboard skills,Word)’

This proposition that was put to LIT Chairs, Unit Heads/Team Leaders and Unit BusinessManagers/Admin Managers and prosecutors and 180 responses were received.

Overall 46.1% of staff positively agreed, 28.3% disagreed and 25.6% were neutral.

There is a very wide range of data between roles, ranging from 83.9% of the LIT Chairs to 27.1% ofprosecutors, agreeing. Among lawyers 37.7% disagreed with the statement.

Some of the differences are likely to be attributable to the fact that while training may have been available,some roles have found it difficult to attend as other commitments have been given a higher priority.

52


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree

4 21 26 42 7

CCP/ABM

LIT Chair

Unit Head

Prosecutor

UBM/Admin Mgr

Caseworker

Administrator

Typist

43.828.128.1

23.8 33.3 42.9

All roles collated 24.7 25.9 49.4

62.7

36.4

26.9


43.630.8

45.5

10.5

25.6

64.314.321.4

40.723.336.1

18.2

51.619.429.0


Role specific (percentages)

Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree

10 18 26 27 19All roles collated (percentages)

‘Area super-users have been effective in providing CMS support’

This proposition was put to all roles and 342 replies were received.

Overall 55.0% of respondents agreed, 15.8% disagreed and 29.2% were neutral.

The data ranged between 87.5% to 30.3% of respondents agreeing.The most positive were theCCPs/ABMs, LIT Chairs, UBMs/Admin Managers and caseworkers.The least positive were the typistsand prosecutors where 30.3% and 33.3% agreed and 23.6% and 23.8% disagreed respectively.

It is of some concern that there is such disparity between the views of managers and those offrequent users.This re-inforces our view that some managers have lost touch with what is reallyhappening with regard to CMS usage and support. Interviewees had strong views on this matter ;while some super-users are still clearly doing a good job, most are at best re-active (partly due tochanging priorities).

During interviews it was apparent that super-users were very useful in the early stages ofimplementation, but that their effectiveness has reduced over time.

‘I can easily find the information I need in CMS’

The proposition was put to CCPs/ABMs, Unit Heads/Team Leaders, UBMs/Admin Managers,caseworkers, administrators and typists and 218 replies were received.

Overall 66.1% agreed, 9.2% disagreed and 24.8% were neutral.

Data ranged from 83.1% to 27.8% agreeing. Most positive were the administrators with 83.1%agreeing and only 4.6% disagreeing.The least positive were the caseworkers.

Our interviews indicated that people did not fully understand the extent of information that isavailable to them. However, overall, most people are positive about the wider range of data that isgenerally available to assist them.

53


CCP/ABM

LIT Chair

Unit Head

Prosecutor

UBM/Admin Mgr

Caseworker

Administrator

Typist

87.53.19.4

23.8 42.9 33.3

All roles collated 15.8 29.2 55.0

47.8

54.6

37.3


73.713.2

36.4

14.9

13.2

71.421.47.1

30.346.123.6

9.1

77.46.516.1

Role specific and all roles collated (percentages)

Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree


‘I can easily find the information I need in MIS’

The proposition was put to Unit Heads/Team Leaders and UBMs/Admin Managers and 63 replieswere received.

Overall 28.5% agreed, 15.9% disagreed and 55.6% were neutral.

The Unit Heads were less positive than the UBMs/Admin Managers with 22.7% and 31.7% agreeingrespectively and 22.7% and 12.2% disagreeing respectively.

Some of the high level of ‘neutral’ responses may be attributable to licensing issues (each Area haslimited number of MIS licenses).The low level of positive perceptions is consistent with our findingthat there is still scope to improve understanding of the capability of MIS.

Improving the knowledge of managers to ensure that they can get maximum advantage of thebetter information available to them remains a challenge.

‘CMS assists in complying with the requirements of legislative change’

Of the 208 responses received 24.0% agreed, 28.9% disagreed and 47.1% were neutral.

Most positive were the CCPs/ABMs and LIT Chairs, who ranged between 54.8% and 41.9% positive.

Other roles were less positive. Only 11.6% of prosecutors agreed and 33.7% disagreed, and only19.1% of Unit Heads agreed, with 47.6% disagreeing.

We conducted follow-up research to some questionnaires to clarify a number of points.The mainreasons for low satisfaction ratings related to perceptions of long delays in updating the system -many examples were cited and are included in the main body of the report.

Most people still tend to rely on textbooks (Archbold etc.) for legal information.

54


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agreeAll roles collated (percentages) 0 16 55 21 8

CCP/ABM

LIT Chair

Unit Head

Prosecutor

Caseworker

All roles collated

41.935.522.6

19.1


24.047.1

33.3

28.9

15.453.930.8

11.654.733.7

47.6

54.838.76.5


‘CMS simplifies introduction of national CPS/CJS initiatives’

This proposition was put to CCPs/ABMs, LIT Chairs and Unit Heads/Team Leaders and 84responses were received.

Overall 41.7% of replies positively agreed, 21.4% disagreed and 36.9% were neutral.

The data ranged between 51.6% and 35.5% agreeing and 36.4% and 12.9% disagreeing.The mostpositive were the LIT Chairs.

Once again, the main issue of concern related to delays between initiatives being implemented andthe IT systems being updated.There is a need to improve functionality and management informationto support the No Witness, No Justice initiative and the Effective Trial Management Programme.

‘CMS has led to better quality reviews and recording’

This proposition was put to all prosecutors and 86 replies were received. 52.3% agreed, 22.1%disagreed and 25.6 % were neutral.

During interviews it was clarified that managers felt that the recording of reviews had improved butthat CMS could not by itself affect the quality of decision-making, as this is down to the individuals’ skills.Lawyers and their managers were more positive in respect of the recording of the review, the layout,legibility, available prompts and transparency rather than the quality of decision-making.This is re-inforcedby comments entered by respondents alongside this question and in other parts of the questionnaires.

The transparency and availability of information is enabling better performance management thatshould in turn drive up the quality of review over time.

‘There is some functionality I avoid using’

55


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agreeAll roles collated (percentages) 7 15 26 39 13

Prosecutor

UBM/Admin Mgr

Caseworker

Administrator

All roles collated

43.542.314.1

26.3


44.7

31.444.524.0

11.950.837.3

29.0

43.638.518.0



The data range for those who agreed that they avoided functionality ranged between 43.6% and11.9%.Those who avoided functionality the most were the prosecutors and UBM/Admin Managers,while administrators avoided it least.

The most common aspect of CMS ‘avoided’ by staff is the task lists, with the majority simply ignoring it.

Comments from prosecutors in the questionnaires under this proposition related to functions theycould not perform due to lack of training.The CMS committal preparation package is also avoidedby many lawyers and caseworkers.

A number of respondents mentioned that the CMS custody time limit (CTL) system is not usedexcept possibly as a back-up to manual systems.

Administrator’s comments related to their frustration in other staff not using the system.

‘The templates in the system are convenient and simple’

This proposition was put to prosecutors, UBMs/Admin Managers, caseworkers, administrators andtypists and 248 replies were received.

Overall 49.2% of responses agreed, 18.6% disagree and 32.3% were neutral.The data range of thoseagreeing was between 57.9% and 38.1%, with caseworkers and administrators most in agreement.

For most roles, the data range was between 21.1% and 38.1% in disagreement, with the exceptionof the administrators who disagreed least at only 3.1%.This may reflect the limited number oftemplates that they may use.

The highest rate of disagreement, at 38.1%, was from the typists, but 38.1% also agreed with theproposition. From interviews during the on-site phase, it appears that typists’ concerns related mainlyto the format of templates.There is concern that although people like the self population of templates,this was counterbalanced by the need to make amendments due to syntax and format irregularities.

56


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree


‘Task prompts are effective in keeping on top of my workload/prompting case actions’


Most positive were the Unit Heads and Unit Business Managers with 45.5% and 47.5% agreeing and9.1% and 12.5% disagreeing respectively.

Least positive were the prosecutors and caseworkers with only 13.1% and 23.7% agreeing and57.1% and 39.5% disagreeing respectively.

There were a broad range of additional comments as to individuals’ concerns.While there weremany different reasons cited, most related to the difficulty in using the task list to prioritise work.A ‘can’t see the wood for the trees’ type syndrome is prevalent.

‘CMS has made inter-agency working more effective’

This proposition was put to CCPs/ABMs, LIT Chairs, Unit Heads/Team Leaders, UBMs/AdminManagers and caseworkers and 163 replies were received.

Overall 37.4% of respondents agreed, 19.6% disagreed and 42.9% were neutral.

The data ranged form 51.6% to 29% in agreement. LIT Chairs were the most positive, and UnitHeads and caseworkers the least, with 33.3% and 29% disagreeing respectively.

There were some positive comments during interviews about the improved performancemanagement data available.This was proving useful in monitoring and managing some inter-agencyinitiatives - particularly statutory charging.

57


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree


Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Neutral

Tend to agree

Strongly agree


Unit Head

Prosecutor

UBM/Admin Mgr

Caseworker

Administrator

45.545.59.1

47.5


40.0

36.546.017.5

All roles collated 29.238.132.8

23.736.839.5

12.5

13.129.857.1


‘Access to electronic files in CMS saves me time’

Of the 188 responses were received 56.9% agreed, 14.4% disagreed and 28.7% were neutral.

The data ranged from 76.9% to 36.4% agreeing.

The administrators felt most positively that the system saved them time and none of them disagreed.Those who agreed least were the Unit Heads and typists.

Administrative functions

These propositions were put to all administrators and between 62 and 64 responses were receivedto each question. Overall administration functions are seen to be more efficient with CMS but theresponse was less positive with regard to correspondence handling and court list preparation.

Unit Head/Team Leader functions

Managers are appreciative of the level of information that is now available to them to assist inmonitoring performance.They feel that this is having a positive effect on the standard of recording ofreviews. Some also feel that the transparency of data is leading to higher levels of accountabilitywhich has had some knock-on impact on the quality of decisions.

The level of information stored in the electronic file is perceived as a major benefit, albeit file examinationand interviews confirm that the level of benefit will vary radically on a case-by-case basis.

58


Unit Head

UBM/Admin Mgr

Administrator

All roles collated

36.431.831.8

52.6


56.928.7

21.1

14.4

42.942.914.3

76.923.10.0

26.3

47.635.716.7


Caseworker

Typist

Registration and updating of cases is easy

CMS has improvedcorrespondence handling

CMS has made court listpreparation more effective

Finalising cases is easy in CMS

70.320.39.4

46.8


45.2

61.329.09.7

8.1

52.439.77.9

Questions (percentages)

31.845.522.7


72.718.29.1

72.718.29.1

59.127.313.6


CMS assists inappropriately

allocating cases to staff

CMS has improvedtimeliness of

decision-making

CMS has improved the quality of case information

CMS is an effective tool for monitoring review quality

OPEN QUESTIONS

What aspects of Area work are done more effectively with CMS?This question was put to all roles and 530 individual comments on 343 questionnaires returned.The most popular aspect of CMS referred to accessibility of shared information to help deal withqueries or work without needing a file in the CPS office and at remote sites - this was mentioned in159 comments.There were also 25 separate comments referring to the benefits of storing alldocuments relating to a case on an electronic file at a central point.

The access to local management and performance reports were mentioned in 34 instances, mainlyby CCP/ABMs and LIT Chairs, and 22 comments about CMS usefulness in performance monitoringof individuals were made across all grades.There were a significant number of positive commentsmade about specific templates or the self-population feature of these documents.The layout andprompts of the review ‘boxes’ were praised in 39 questionnaires and 38 liked the file location option.

What are the three main barriers preventing more effective Area use of CMS?This question was also put to all grades and 223 comments were received in 343 questionnaires returned.

The most common barrier to effective use was the speed of the system with 45 comments. Nineteencomments were also made about problems at remote sites in relation to the speed of the system orthe lack of IT.

The desire for more or better training was commented on 23 times (only eight of these by lawyers).Time available to use the system and get used to it was mentioned 34 times (17 times by lawyers).Lack of IT or keyboard skills was also mentioned 20 times (five times by CCP/ABMs and six times byprosecutors).

The other frequently raised comment related to frustration at others not using the system and outof 25 such comments, 13 were made by administrators.

What are the main improvements you would introduce to CMS?This question was also put to all grades and 204 comments were made in 343 questionnairesreturned.The highest number of comments (41) related to the speed of the system and thisincluded document and report production. Remote access to IT and the speed of the system atremote sites being improved was mentioned in 13 comments.This is consistent with the fact thatthe speed of the system was perceived to be the biggest barrier to effective use.

Joining up of CJS IT was mentioned in 15 comments. A desire for more auto populating and betterquality templates was mentioned in 14 and a number related specifically to the auto population of LWACs.

Better, wider and less restrictive search facilities were also mentioned in 13.These related to betterwildcard functions and improved searches in indictment and charge fields.

A desire to improve a range of functionality was also mentioned and these included, editing, backbuttons, email prompts and alert notices, better finalisation options and VIB prompts.

59


ANNEX C - ISSUES REQUIRING ONGOING MANAGEMENT ATTENTION

These are issues highlighted in the report that require some action but that have not been raised asrecommendations. In some cases this is because some actions are already in hand, but it was tooearly for us to assess their progress or the effectiveness in the appropriate timescales. In otherinstances, the points raised are of a lower importance than warranted by a recommendation.

1. Local managers should review whether there is scope to deploy laptop computers effectivelyin their Area.

2. The work underway on executive management training needs to be completed as soon aspossible. An early review should take place to gauge effectiveness of the course.

3. The proposed new systems for managing templates need to be kept under managementreview to ensure that they are effective.

4. There is a need to improve the understanding of local configuration management.

5. The ‘quick register’ process needs to be reviewed to optimise usage giving due regard to thenew requirements for witness care.

6. Priorities of CRMs should be reviewed to ensure that they add maximum value to the business.

7. There are opportunities to make better use of the information held on the Infonet throughincreased staff awareness.

8. An early review should be conducted into the revised training arrangements (e-learning andrevised central training modules) to monitor effectiveness.

9. A review of existing standard (non-CMS) training should be conducted to ensure that thebenefits of effective CMS usage are integrated into the courses.

10. Early finalisation of the upgraded Model Office facility is required to improve access andimprove training facilities

11. Consideration should be given to allowing local authorisation of sign-on rights.

12. The SLAs with LogicaCMG should be reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose -particularly with regard to the speed of response at remote sites.

13. The support and training available for the Witness Management System needs to beimproved.

60


14. Area participation in the Issues Log process needs to be re-invigorated.

15. There is a need to improve the understanding of the effectiveness of system usage - this maybe linked to new measures and objectives.

16. Consideration should be given to adopting a Minimum Standard for CMS usage based onspecific roles.

17. Management information on case progression should be strengthened, and to a lesser extentfor victim and witness issues.

18. Formal reviews of the effectiveness and benefits of the interface with NSPIS and NICHEshould be completed as soon as possible.

19. The process of updating CMS with information from the Police National Legal Databaseshould be improved.

20. Processes need reviewing to ensure that the UAG and other interested parties have adequatetime to consider proposals for new releases.

21. The ongoing work on spreading good practice needs to be completed.

61


ANNEX D - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM FILE SAMPLE

To support the other investigative work, a random sample of cases was selected for a CMS-basedassessment by inspectors.The sample was drawn from cases finalised in the period January - March2006.The purpose of the file examination was to determine the quality, consistency and extent ofCMS use and to form a view of the quality of entry (not the decision).This was used to inform ourinterviews during the on-site phase of the inspection.

This was not an assessment of the overall quality of casework in the Areas visited - a file that hasnot scored well for CMS usage may have been handled perfectly well on a paper basis.

Inspectors examined the quality of CMS entries relating to pre-charge decisions, initial reviews, fullfile reviews, and a variety of other CMS work flow including progression and management functions,case status flagging, witness information, inclusion of defence solicitors, instructions to counsel, loggingof correspondence and of telephone conversations etc.

Areas had different problems which may have affected their CMS usage profile and we tried takeaccount of this in our analysis.

We grouped our findings into three categories:

• initial review/pre-charge advice;

• full file review;

• other CMS work flow;

and developed evaluation criteria for each category.

CATEGORY EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Quality of CMS initial review/pre-charge advice

Not Satisfactory: information basic, difficult to follow eventsModerate: information brief and not all complete but events can be followedGood: detailed information provided, easy to follow events even if a few

aspects may be incomplete

Quality of CMS full file review

Not Satisfactory: information is very brief or just tick box or Yes/No answerModerate: some detail, builds on previous work, can understand eventsGood: detailed information setting out case, issues discussed

62


Quality of other CMS work flow

Not satisfactory: key information missing, insufficient range of information recordedModerate: reasonable detail, but some omissions e.g. flagging not complete,

limited correspondence attached and so onGood: wide range of information available including, correspondence,

accurate flagging, witness details, some logging of telephone calls

A significant amount of cross-checking was conducted to ensure the consistency of ‘marking’.

In undertaking this analysis we noted that our pre-site random sample had yielded a variable numberof pre-charge decision (PCD) cases and these were distributed unevenly across the Areas (rangefrom 50%-100%). As we were concerned that this might affect findings, non-PCD cases wereremoved from the sample and replaced by PCD cases from the same period. In the analysis belowthe pre-site sample is referred to as Sample 1 and the revised PCD sample as Sample 2.

Inspectors’ analysis

Our analysis consists of a number of tests:

Test 1 - evaluation of the recording of legal decisions in Sample 1Test 2 - evaluation of the recording of legal decisions in Sample 2 - all PCDTest 3 - evaluation of other CMS work flow in Sample 1Test 4 - evaluation of other CMS work flow in Sample 2Test 5 - consistency tests across all three categories and comparing Sample 1 with Sample 2

Test 1 - evaluation of the recording of legal decisions in Sample 1

This was a random sample of 160 cases (20 per Area) where trial activity had commenced.This assessment did not differentiate between files that were subject to pre-charge advice and thosethat were not. For this evaluation the following points should be noted:

• MG3/initial review.The criteria was applied if either an MG3 or an initial review was on the electronic file. (If the initial review merely says ‘see paper file’, it will have been treated as no review present);

• Full file reviews. If a basic review had been input and other more detailed information had been stored electronically in CMS (usually case analysis in instructions to counsel), then the two documents were looked at in combination.

The MG3/initial review evaluation is aligned to a national CPS performance target and gives someindication of compliance levels, albeit it is recognised that some files will have originated before thismeasure was adopted.

63


The table below shows the results for the legal categories of initial review/pre-charge decision andfor full file review assessed individually for each file.There is also a consistency check to count thenumber of files in each Area where both the legal categories were to an acceptable standard. In eachArea 20 files were selected and the figures in columns two and six indicate the number of files ateach stage where appropriate entries were made to enable assessment.This indicates that asignificant number of files did not have the relevant entries.

Total of files Quality of CMS MG3/Initial Review Full File Quality of CMS Full File Review

with MG3/ Review

Area Initial review

8 3 0 2 1 6 1 2 3

7 11 1 7 3 12 2 7 3

6 8 0 4 4 8 5 1 2

5 11 2 4 5 16 10 4 2

4 17 3 10 4 16 3 10 3

3 19 6 5 8 12 2 6 4

2 13 3 3 7 12 2 5 5

1 11 3 1 7 16 1 6 9

Total 93 18 36 39 98 26 41 31

Of the 160 files examined 93 (58%) had a recorded MG3s or initial reviews on CMS, and 98 (61%)full file reviews were on CMS. As these were all trial files we would have expected them all to havehad at least one of the ‘reviews’ recorded on CMS; the non-compliance rate of approximately 40%demonstrates that there is clearly room for improvement.

We considered the quality of those documents that were present and found that of the 93 fileswhich had MG3s or initial reviews, 75 (81%) were of an acceptable standard. Of the 98 with full filereviews, 72 (75%) were to an acceptable standard. A small number of cases will have been standardadvice cases as opposed to pre-charge files and therefore an MG3 would not have been raised. Ifthe formal written advice was attached to the file this will have been accepted and assessed.

If the level of acceptable files is expressed as a percentage of the total file sample (160) the resultswould be 47% acceptable for MG3/initial review and 45% for full file reviews; again this shows thescope for improvement that exists.

To measure the consistency of CMS use through the decision-making process by prosecutors weconsidered a file to be acceptable if it had a moderate or good entry for both MG3s/initial reviewand full file review.This showed that of the 160 files only 26% were satisfactory, which is somewhatdisappointing in light of the comparatively low threshold of the tests applied.

64


Not Moderate Good Not Moderate Good

satisfactory satisfactory

Test 1 - Total numbers of files with acceptable MG3/initial review and full file review

There is significant variance in the level and quality of entries input into CMS. Across the legalcategories, Area 4 shows the highest level of usage, albeit the majority of files were classified asmoderate. In some of the other Areas a lower proportion of staff appear to be using the system,but the quality of the entries is somewhat higher.Whilst all Areas need to improve performance,greater urgency is required in two of them.

Owing to the random nature of file selection, three of the Areas had a lower ratio of files subject topre-charge decision.This has tended to lead to less favourable results in those Areas and this led usto conduct further tests (see below).

Local practices also account for some of the variation in results. For example in Area 8 a number ofMG3s were completed manually and not attached to the electronic file. In these cases the reviewsoften just cross-referenced to the MG3 and as this was not visible to inspectors, a low number offiles were available for assessment. Similarly, in Area 5 it was then the practice not to use CMS forcommittal preparation and therefore inspectors could not examine the case analysis in instructionsto counsel in the way that we could in most Areas.We are aware that the Area has since revised itspolicy in this respect.

Our findings show that whilst there is some evidence of good use by prosecutors, not all are makingan effective contribution and more needs to be done to increase usage levels. In Area 4, thechallenge is a little different as usage levels are good across all staff disciplines; their main aim mustbe to drive for even better quality entries.

Test 2 - evaluation of the recording of legal decisions in Sample 2 - all PCD

To eliminate the possibility that the variable distribution of PCD cases in Sample 1 might affect ordistort Area results a second sample was created whereby the non-PCD files in Sample 1 werereplaced with files from the same period that had been flagged as pre-charge decision.Whilst weapplied the same evaluation criteria, we decided to broaden the admissibility of information assessedin regard to PCD to include either an MG3 or details in PCD screens. If neither were present wewould consider an initial review as previously.The evaluation for full file reviews remained the same,as has the approach to standard written advice cases.

The change in admissibility enabled more meaningful analysis of comparative performance of Areasbut moves away from compliance to national targets.The revised approach allows us to make ajudgement as to whether a reasonable understanding of the case can be obtained by access to justthe electronic file. In the fullness of time the ability to operate without paper files is a stated objective,and this gives an understanding of progress to date.The results are show in the table overleaf:

65


8

5 4 8 771001

7 6 5 4 3 2 1Area

Total of files with acceptableMG3/Initial review and full file review

Total of files Quality of CMS MG3/Initial Review Full File Quality of CMS Full File Review

with MG3/ Review

Area Initial review

8 19 13 3 3 11 3 4 4

7 19 4 9 6 13 3 4 6

6 20 4 7 9 14 6 5 3

5 19 2 10 7 18 10 4 4

4 20 5 11 4 17 4 10 3

3 20 6 6 8 12 2 6 4

2 20 6 6 8 11 3 2 6

1 20 6 6 8 19 2 9 8

Total 157 46 58 53 115 33 44 38

As with Test 1 we looked at 160 files in total and the figures in columns two and six represent thenumber of files in each Area where relevant entries were made. Overall the number of files that havebeen assessed has increased considerably from Test 1 - this is partly attributable to the change to thetest and partly to the more targeted PCD sample. Of the 160 files examined 157 (98%) had MG3sor initial reviews on CMS. For full file reviews 115 (72%) were on CMS and 45 (28%) were missing.

Of the 157 files that were assessed, 111 (69%) were adjudged as acceptable or above for CMSPCD/initial review. In Area 8 a number of files that were excluded in Test 1 have subsequently beenincluded with the revised admissibility for pre-charge; unfortunately the majority were unsatisfactoryas the PCD analysis boxes on CMS were perfunctory and often referred to the MG3 which was not attached.

For full file review, of the 115 present, 82 (71.3%) were acceptable which is similar to Test 1 (73.1%).This is not surprising as the rules remained the same and all files were trials in both samples.Whenexpressed as a percentage of the total file sample (160) this equates to 51% and shows that furtheraction is required to improve recording and quality of full file reviews.

The consistency measure in this test showed that 65 (41%) of the 160 files were to an acceptablestandard, up from 26% in Test 1. Clearly there is a need to improve the recording of pre-chargeinformation in Area 8. Five of the remaining Areas have similar scores with an overall acceptable filelevel in the regions of 35%-40% although they have different strengths and weaknesses.Two Areashave scored significantly better, and this is consistent with our findings with regard to the level ofemphasis given to CMS usage in those locations. Both still have a Local Implementation Team (LIT),more pro-active local super-users, and a higher level of management direction.

66


Not Moderate Good Not Moderate Good

satisfactory satisfactory

Test 2 - Total numbers of files with acceptable MG3/initial review and full file review

On an individual basis, Area 6 has benefited from the change to the file sample and has scoredsignificantly better.This is reflective of the emphasis placed on pre-charge decisions in that Area,supported by a monitoring regime. Prosecutors view the use of CMS as mandatory in such cases,whereas in non-PCD cases it is treated as optional in some units.

Recording of other CMS work flowInspectors also assessed the extent of other CMS work flow by both legal and administrative staff.Files were examined to establish the degree to which CMS facilities were being used to record casestatus flagging, inclusion of correspondence, presence of disclosure information, witness details,correspondence handling and so on. Again, the use of trial files gave the Areas the best opportunityto demonstrate effective usage.

Whilst the change to the file samples should have no significant impact on outcomes we havemeasured performance for both samples.

Test 3 - evaluation of other CMS work flow in Sample 1

The files used in Sample 1 were utilised for this assessment i.e. trials that may or may not have beensubject to pre-charge advice.The table below shows the results of this assessment:

Total number of Inspector assessment of other CMS work flow

files in Sample

Not Moderate Good Number of files

satisfactory with moderate/

Area good use

8 20 13 7 0 7

7 20 2 12 6 18

6 20 8 10 2 12

5 20 6 12 2 14

4 20 1 3 16 19

3 20 17 3 0 3

2 20 12 8 0 8

1 20 2 8 10 18

Combined Total 160 61 63 36 99

67


8

8 8 8 1281173

7 6 5 4 3 2 1Area

Total of files with acceptableMG3/Initial review and full file review

For this test inspectors were able to assess all 160 files and 99 (62%) were assessed as being of anacceptable standard.This compares favourably with the legal information test for Sample 1 where26% of the overall file sample were considered acceptable.This is consistent with our findings duringinterview that showed that the level of confidence and ability in using CMS was generally loweramongst prosecutors than administrative staff.

There is a significant difference between the Areas, both in terms of level of usage and quality ofentries. Area 4 again scores highest in this category in terms of usage, and on this occasion thequality is also higher, most being good.There is a higher degree of electronic inter-change of datawith the police in this Area and this will have contributed to the positive results.

The figures for Area 3 have been affected by a significant long-term technical problem in one of itsunits that affected usage including the period from which the file sample was drawn.This has had adisheartening effect on staff, but hopefully as the problem is resolved so usage will improve.

All Areas were inputting witness details into CMS although there were variable practices over bywhom and when the data was entered.There was a difference of approach between Areas withregard to the use of ‘snooker balls’ to identify specific categories of witnesses - some were excellent,others were poor. There were also inconsistencies as to whether a witness was flagged asappropriate for Section 9 cases (a legal provision which enables a witness statement to be read inopen court without the need for the witness to attend court) and those actually served in thatmanner. Flagging was inconsistent in many Areas particularly in respect of ‘identifiable victims’.

The handling of correspondence and communications is the aspect where there was the mostvariation in approach.Two of the Areas clearly try hard to include electronic copies of documents onthe CMS file, whereas in others documents were not attached. During interviews it became clearthat many documents are produced outside of CMS, usually in MS Word. Inappropriate templates,speed and reliability of the system were cited as the main reasons for non-use of CMS.

68


Test 4 - evaluation of other CMS work flow in Sample 2

This is the same usage test as in Test 3 but applied to Sample 2.The results shown in the table below:

Total number of Inspector assessment of other CMS work flow

files in Sample

Not Moderate Good Number of files

satisfactory with moderate/

Area good use

8 20 5 11 4 15

7 20 3 8 9 17

6 20 7 11 2 13

5 20 5 7 8 15

4 20 3 2 15 17

3 20 17 3 0 3

2 20 8 9 3 12

1 20 1 9 10 19

Combined Total 160 49 60 51 111

Whilst there is no discernable reason for the change in file sample to have affected the outcome,results were better in this assessment (up from 62% to 69% acceptable).This was particularly so inArea 8 where the change of sample led to significantly better outcomes.

The pattern of usage was very similar to that of Sample 1 and again, the technical problems in Area 3 will have affected both Area and overall results.

Test 5 - consistency test across all three categories and comparing Sample 1 withSample 2

The purpose of this test was to determine the consistency of CMS usage across both legal andadministrative categories for each file. A file was assessed and given an acceptable rating if it scoredmoderate or good in all three categories (pre-charge advice/initial review, full file review and otherCMS work flow).The table below shows the results:

69


No of files No of acceptable No of files No of acceptable

Area in Sample 1 files in Sample 1 in Sample 2 files in Sample 2

8 3 1 (33%) 19 3 (16%)

7 11 5 (45%) 19 8 (42%)

6 8 0 (0%) 20 5 (25%)

5 11 4 (36%) 19 8 (42%)

4 17 10 (59%) 20 11 (55%)

3 19 0 (0%) 20 0 (0%)

2 13 4 (31%) 20 5 (25%)

1 11 6 (55%) 20 12 (60%)

Combined Total 93 30 (32%) 157 52 (33%)

As a number of files in Sample 1 were not assessed for the pre-charge/initial review test, the numberof qualifying files also needs to be taken into account. For Sample 1 only 93 cases could be assessedacross all categories whereas in Sample 2 157 files were eligible.When expressed as a percentage ofthe files that were actually assessed the effect of the change of file sample is negligible in performanceterms. In both tests approximately 33% of the files were considered to be acceptable. In combinationthis is a stretching test but it gives some indication of the improvement necessary to achieveacceptable levels of electronic file content.

The results from Area 3 are again affected by the difficulties experienced by administrative staffbecause of the technical problems encountered.

Conclusions

It is clear from our tests that individual Area circumstances are having an effect on CMS performance.

Where management commitment has been strong, supported by active LITs and super-users,this has had a positive affect on an Areas’ performance.

The Area which had been experiencing ongoing technical difficulties scored poorly in the other CMSwork flow category and this reduced their results overall even though their performance for legalaspect were on par with other Areas.

Usage among administrative staff is generally good. Flagging can be improved as can the recording ofwitnesses (Witness Care Units should help in this respect as use of the Witness ManagementSystem improves).The main aspect for development is with regard to managing correspondence.While this is not crucial now, it will take on much greater importance if the use of electronic files isto become a reality.

70


There is a need to improve the consistency with which prosecutors use CMS.The paper file remainsthe master/definitive file; nevertheless, opportunities to make better information more readilyavailable to more people are being missed. During the on-site phase we encountered growingacceptance of the fact that CMS usage is important, and were made aware of changes already madebetween the time of our file reading and the inspection visit.That CMS can be used effectively isdemonstrated by the results already obtained by some individuals, units and Areas.

Progress is being made, although it is gradual and much remains to be done.The level of files thatwere acceptable (or better) across all three measurement categories demonstrates the scope forimprovement that exists.

Hopefully as system enhancements are implemented so confidence will grow with the consequentimprovement in usage.We have made recommendations and observations in this thematic reviewthat should help the CPS overcome some of the barriers to use that currently exist and allow themto continue to make progress.

71


ANNEX E - GLOSSARY

CPS AREA ROLES

Administration Manager A member of staff responsible for managing staff undertaking administrativefunctions within Area units.

Area Business Manager (ABM) A senior manager responsible for finance, personnel, businessplanning and other operational matters within a CPS Area.

Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP) One of 42 chief officers heading the local CPS in each Area, is abarrister or solicitor. Has a degree of autonomy but is accountable to Director of PublicProsecutions for the performance of the Area.

Caseworker A member of CPS staff who deals with, or manages, day-to-day conduct of aprosecution case under the supervision of a Crown Prosecutor and, in the Crown Court, attendscourt to assist the advocate.

Level E Manager A legally qualified senior manager usually in charge of a several legal teams withinan Area.

Prosecutor A legally qualified member of Area staff responsible for making legal decisions on casesand presenting cases in court.

Unit Business Manager A member of staff, not legally qualified, responsible for managing unit business.

Unit Head/Team Leader A legally qualified member of staff responsible for a unit within a CPS Area.The unit may handle either magistrates’ courts’ casework, Crown Court casework or a combination.

CPS TERMS

Area Performance Review Group A CPS Headquarters team assessing and monitoring theperformance of CPS Areas using the Performance Management Framework.

Business Information Systems Directorate (BIS) CPS Headquarters Directorate responsible for theCompass CMS programme amongst other things.

Centre of Excellence An authoritative group within CPS Headquarters charged with maintaining astrategic overview of the portfolio of programmes and projects.

Compass CMS The CPS strategic Case Management System in use across the service, enablingbetter preparation and presentation of the prosecution case. It also provides links to other criminaljustice organisations.

Customer Relationship Manager (CRM) A manager within BIS with responsibility for assisting anallocated number of Areas with Information Systems matters.

Non-CPS Locations Access to Compass CMS from police stations, courts and from private homesby home-based CPS staff.

PFI The Government’s Private Finance Initiative.

Performance Management Framework The CPS arrangements for monitoring and managing performance.Is based on a balanced scorecard and uses a traffic light indicator to highlight topics of concern.

Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) The executive within an organisation responsible for ensuringthat a project or programme of change meets its objectives and delivers the projected benefits.

72


Victim Information Bureau (VIB) A unit established to provide information to victims of crimeabout CPS decisions.

Witness Care Units (WCU) An organisational unit established to provide support and informationto victims and witnesses.WCUs are staffed with a combination of CPS and police resources.

COMPASS TERMS

Bandwidth The amount of information or data that can be sent over a network component in agiven period of time.

Business Design Authority (BDA) The group within CPS providing strategic direction for thedevelopment of the Case Management System and Management Information System.

Compass The IT equipment and associated networks including cabling systems, hubs, routers,gateways, communication links, terminals, PC’s or multi-user systems and associated system softwarerequired to deliver the information services.

Deskside support Individual assistance by qualified staff to assist CPS users usually following initialCMS training.

e-learning Modular training resources provided electronically to staff through the Infonet.

Flagging Certain priority cases are subject to management monitoring and CMS provides anidentifier or flag which staff attached to cases to assist with the monitoring processes.

Functionality What the computerised part of a system does to automate the business processes of an organisation.

Functional Specification A document containing a clear and unambiguous description of the functionsthe system must provide, the data it must maintain, and any constraints it must operate under.

Infonet The internal internet that enables the CPS to share its resources with its employees withoutconfidential information being made available externally. Otherwise know as an Intranet.

Issues Log Suggestions or difficulties highlighted by user staff for consideration by the Compass CMSBusiness Design Authority and the User Assurance Group.

Local Implementation Team (LIT) An inter-disciplinary group of CPS Area staff charged withfacilitating local CMS implementation.Work may include: staff skills analysis, revising business processto match CMS functionality and managing logistics.

Management Information System (MIS) The core CPS system for obtaining performance reportsand information.The system receives automatic downloads from CMS.

Model Office A hypothetical Area with an organisational structure and simulated cases which can beused for testing purposes.

Programme Board A body comprised of senior staff within an organisation providing governance toa programme; is accountable for the success or otherwise of the investments made.

Quick Register A method of entering multiple cases where defendants have pleaded guilty at thefirst court hearing provided the case has not be subject to a pre-charge decision. Abbreviated detailsare entered.

Service Desk The single point of contact for users to report all problems, log all queries and requestservices.

73


Service Level Agreement (SLA) A document which provides specific targets against which theperformance of the information service can be judged.

Snooker balls Functionality within CMS used to identify types of witness and their needs e.g. victim,vulnerable witness, expert witness etc.The identifiers are coloured circles hence the term “snookerballs”.

Super-users Local staff with advanced IT skills who act as mentors and as a support resource forother less skilled staff in their Area.

Task lists Prioritised case actions automatically identified by CMS which need to be attended to byeither legal or administrative staff.

Templates Pre-formatted electronic documents that need customising for a particular case.

User Advisor Group (UAG) Staff representatives from CPS Areas charged with providing theCompass CMS team with assurance that the CMS design meets the CPS business requirements.

User Requirement Specification (URS) A document produced by, or on behalf of an organisation,which sets out in non-technical terms user needs.

Virtual Tutor A training support resource available to CPS staff via the Service Desk.The tutor is ahuman person providing advice to staff using e-learning training packages or during operational activities.

Work-around A user action to bypass a CMS system feature to overcome a perceived shortcoming of the functionality.

ORGANISATIONAL TERMS

Basic Command Unit (BCU) A police operational unit also know as a division, area or district.

Criminal Justice Information Technology (CJIT) A Government IT organisation responsible for thedelivery of IT that makes a positive difference across agencies.

Criminal Justice Organisation (CJO) Usually used to describe the national bodies that operate theCriminal Justice System (CPS, police, HM Courts Service, HM Prisons Service and so on).

Criminal Justice System (CJS) The CJOs and component agencies involved in applying legal andadministrative procedures to bringing offenders to justice.

Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS) The body used by the civil service unions to co-ordinatenegotiations and consultation with Departmental management.

Police Reform A proposal by the Home Office to reduce the number of police forces by a series ofstrategic mergers.

CJS Initiatives These are business improvement programmes usually involving more than one CJO.

CJS Exchange A technology platform that will link IT systems across the CJS. It will transport databetween CJOs’ strategic case management systems and convert the information into the required format.

Effective Trial Management Programme (ETMP) An initiative, involving criminal justice agenciesworking together, to reduce the number of ineffective trials by improving case preparation andprogression from the point of charge through to the conclusion of a case.

LIBRA An IT system to replace the magistrates’ courts existing information technology systems witha single, modern infrastructure including case management, account management and links to otherCJS agencies.

74


NICHE A police IT system with integrated record management which replaces a large number ofdiscrete systems including primary calling, custody management and case preparation.The system isbeing implemented by nine police forces in England and Wales (cf. NSPIS).

No Witness, No Justice (NWNJ) An initiative to improve witness care to give them support andthe information they need from the inception of an incident through to the conclusion of a criminalprosecution. It is a partnership of the CPS and the Association of Chief Police Officers and alsoinvolves Victim Support and the Witness Service and is delivered locally by jointly staffed WitnessCare Units.

National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS) is an IT program providing incident andresource management including custody and case preparation.The system has been implemented by20 police forces in England and Wales.

Pre-Charge Decision (PCD) Also known as the Charging Scheme. The Criminal Justice Act 2003took forward the recommendations of Lord Justice Auld in his Review of the Criminal Courts, sothat the CPS, rather than the police, determines the decision to charge offenders in the moreserious cases.

PROGRESS An IT tool being developed under the auspices of the Office of Criminal Justice Reformto assist the progression of court directions.

Prosecution Team Performance Management (PTPM) A performance review process of pre-chargedecision outcomes including discontinuance rates, guilty plea rates and attrition rates, undertakenjointly by the police and the CPS for improvement purposes.

Witness Management System (WMS) An IT system used by Witness Care Units to manage witnessissues and keep victims and witnesses up-to-date with the progress of a case. Is based on CompassCMS.

Victims’ Code The Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 sets out in statutory terms aCode of Practice (know as the Victims’ Code) defining the service that victims of crime are toreceive from the criminal justice system.

LEGAL TERMS AND FORMS IN COMMON USAGE

Custody Time Limits The statutory time limit for keeping a defendant in custody awaiting trial.May be extended by the court in certain circumstances.

Indictment The document containing the charges against the defendant for a trial in the Crown Court.

List of Witnesses Attending Court (LWAC) A list used by CPS units to advise WCU of thosewitness required to give evidence at a trial.

MG3 (Manual of Guidance Form 3) A document used by the police and CPS to record chargingadvice and decisions made by the prosecutor.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) This Act contains forfeiture and confiscation provisionsenabling the recovery of assets from criminals.

Section 9 Under Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 a provision enables a witness’ statementto be read out in open court without the necessity for the witness to be present.

MISCELLANEOUS

MS WORD A proprietary word processing package supplied by Microsoft.

75


76


Printed on paper containing a minimum of 80% recycled paper

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate26 – 28 Old Queen StreetLondon SW1H 9HPEmail: [email protected]://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk

compass cms - criminal justice inspectorates · report on the review of the use of the case...

Documents