Restricted Crown Prosecution Draft submission

- Management Review General 8 July 2010



Service 2010 Spending for discussion

with Attorney

Context 1. The Government has asked departments to explain how they will deliver reductions in budgets of 25% and 40%. The latter figure came out of very recent Cabinet discussions. Within these reductions the administration cost limit, fat the CPS pay costs and overhead costs for HQ, will decrease by 33% or 50%. 2. The formal spending review submission is due on 16th July 2010. The submission must comprise a number of financial analyses. which are in hand. and a Ministerial covering letter of some four pages which should cover the Law Officers' Departments strategy for achieving the government's savings targets and specifically address the following questions: Is the activity essential to meet Government priorities? Does the Government need to fund this activity? Does the activity provide substantial economic value? Can the activity be targeted to those most in need? How can the activity be provided at lower cost? How can the activity be provided more effectively? Can the activity be provided by a non-State provider or by citizens, whollY or in partnership? Can non-state providers be paid to carry out the activity according to the results they achieve? Can local bodies as opposed to central government provide the activity?

Not all questions will be relevant to all departments. Brief responses for the CPS are given in Annex A. 3. Discussions and negotiations with the Treasury will contInue over the summer and a settlement rea ched in October to COVer the years 2011-12 to 2014-15. Scale of the challenge 4. The Treasury have just re-presented departmental funding baselines for 201 O~11and this will change both the starting position and the savings target. We are examining what the change will mean in practIce but It is unlikely to have a significant impact on the savings profile.

5. The following chart shows the impact on CPS net Oepartmental Expenditure limit (DEL)
of cumulative reductions of 25% and 40% by the end of the spending review period.


BO (10) July (29) Restricted CPS SR2010 - Management

I·-~-·-;~~···.·~-··· ----~..-----.-.--. --.-.-:----.-.. -----.-- .. -.---.----.-.-.__ __ . ..


6~O 600
SSO 500 4$0

-+- ForCCilst ('J(IJCl1dil~lrc ___ .2 S% r cd ucuon




_._ ..~r






6. This forecast of CPS expenditure assumes inflationary pay and price pressures can be absorbed and that there Is no material increase In case numbers or seriousness. It assumes that the pay freeze continues to preclude pay progression. The forecast also assumes that the level of income, includIng the Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme, will remain at £65 million pa. The profile of reductions is assumed to be straight line . . 25% real terms (based on 5% year on year cash reduction) would mean net expenditure would be approximately £118 million less in 2014-15 than 2010-11. 40% real terms reduction would mean that CPS expenditure would be approximately £180 million less in 2014-15 than 2010~11. The! wider CJS 7. There will not be a Joint CJS submission covering the Home Office. the Ministry of Justice and the CPS but it is critical that plans and assumptions are complementary and make Sense across the CJS.

8. Where the outcomes of the joint work that is underway will lead to an increase in CPS
costs or identify opportunities for further savings we will need to fully engage and influence to ensure that the impacts on the prosecutors are taken into account. The key areas of joint work are: • • • • • • Sentencing review Legal Aid review Criminal Justice systems review Rehabilitation, prisons and offender management Youth crime and justice Drugs, alcohol and mental health


BD (10) July (29) Restricted - Management 9. In considering all these issues departments will have particular regard to: • The potential role of the voluntary sector and civil society and Commissioning models and local accountability. including the role of directly elected Individuals

CPS Submission is widely recognised that a simple pro rata reduction applied across all departments carries the risk of damage to the delivery of services to the public. Nevertheless we are committed to making the maximum deliverable contribution to the savings targets. We also intend to use the fiscal pressures as an opportunity to innovate and be transformatlve to take substantial costs out of service delivery and support processes whilst maintaining core quality standards.

11. Our objective is to achieve through negotiation a sustainable settlement that will enable
the CPS to meet Its statutory obligations and provide a service that meets the expectations of the public. the government and CJS partners.

12; In developing plans for business transformation and structured cost reduction programmes we have used three key assumptions, whIch may change as the cross CJS work progresses Over the summer:

• That there is no significant change In the government's strategy for the prosecution
• • of criminal offences in England and Wales The number of cases received from the police will be consistent with the workload in

That the same proportion of cases are heard In the Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court

13. Detailed analysis and planning will continue throughout the summer months and will be
shared with the Treasury spending team, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

Strategic themes
14. The scale of the challenge means that we must look beyond short term efficiency measures and take a longer term more radical look at the department's priorities and the way that the service Is orqanlsed and delivered. As part of our planning for 2010~11 and beyond we have taken a fundarnentallook at how the business Is delivered and have been back to first principles to confirm our priorities as the public prosecution service and to be sure that we focus only on our core business. The outcome of this work is described in the Strategic Business Transformation section below. 15.ln going through this process we have stood down all change programmes that are not ~ \ absolutely business critical and cannot be directly linked to delivering cost savings and achieving core quality standards. To help ensure the achievement of core quality standards and deliver improvements in performance In the future we have implemented a new, comprehensive quality management system in consultation with HMCPSI. 16. We have also made significant progress in reducing the size and cost of HQ and empowering frontline managers and prosecutors, We are now focusing on reducing bureaucracy still further and removing many of the compliance roles in HQ to free up


80 (10) July (29) Restricted - Management local managers to be lnnovettvo in utilising resources and finding the best solutions to address local issues and priorities.
17. The senior management of the CPS has been given elea r direction and have been actively involved in planning for the spending review and identifying opportunities for savings. We have implemented a full recruitment freeze, mandated procurement controls, introduced an 8:10 ratio for IT equipment and negotiated a new contract with our PFIIT supplier that will provide the infrastructure for full electronic Case working and deliver cost savings. The planning work to date has identified the following key themes for transforming the business and achieving savings over the spending review period.

Tactical efficiency $8vlngs [from 2010 onwards}
• Cost savings through: • Service wide recruitment freeze • Procurement controls includin'g collaborative procurement arrangements , lrnproved management of advocates' fees • Rs9uction in all dIscretionary expenditure; travel. subsistence. stationery. confeJ:ences etc . ~~--, .. ' • • • • Reducti,o!f.-i~Q and Corporate services Consolidation of Area support functions at Group leve! Improved utilisation of eXisting estate and reduced ratio for IT equipment

Process Improvement through: • Optimum Buslnass Model (CPS LEAN programme] in the Magistrates' court and the Crown Court Modernising charging ~ Criminal Justice; Simple Speedy Summary Streamlining the process for guilty pleas in the Crown Court Cross CJS LEAN working • Maximising use of existing one way electronic link between the police and eMS systems



Performance improvement through: • Sharing best practice • Driving up productivity by using available data on speed and output • Flexible deployment of staff resources towards delivery priorities • Ending unproductive and inflexible working patterns • Removing unnecessary controls and bureaucracy to empower local decision makers

StrategiC Business Transformation {by 2013 ..14j • Operational realignment through: ~ AchIeving e.conornies of scale through consolidation of Case preparation into { Group ba::;.ed b or rown Court and Magistrates' courr~ . • CJosure of small inefficient sub-o Ices • Optimisation of utilisation o~eopJe enabled by IT to better manage processes, workflow, productivity and quality • Delivery model transformed though digit/sation of case files to achieve substantial savings In administration and expedite processing. Improved management information will support increased productivity II MaximIsing opportunities from virtual courts and collaboration space





BO (10) July (29)
'Co _

~_'" I ,-~

Restricted -- Management

.D~-Iayering of management structures through consolidation and automation
• Embedding better cost/value ratios so that the most expensive staff resources are deployed only when unavoidable. Use of paralegals, APs and AP2s optimised. Crown Court advocacy organised around and aligned to Crown Court hubs to achieve optimum cost effectiveness through deployment of in-house and selfemployed advocates Outsourcing of corporate services where it makes financial sense to do 50 Cost consciousness, a focus on reducing unit costs and delivering better VFM must be a key priority for every manager Culture of continuous improvement must be embedded throughout the o rga nisatio n



l ;'

• • •

I, .._!~


~ :r _.,,'



Structured cost reduction - 25%

.: 18. The measures and initiatives described above will enable the CPS to continue to deliver , ... the service with signIficantly diminished resources. Successful delivery will be extremely ·....;t \' difficult ,for.!he de.partment will ne~d a fundamental cultural change in recogn,ising ~ and delivering only key priorities. Nothing else will be affonjpble, Such major bUSIness ~ 'i change will bring considerable risks toseivlce delivery.





-19.These strategies will not directly reduce the costs of the service. Savings of £15 million pa by 2014-15 could be delivered through procurement, estates rationalisation and the extension of the PFI IT contract to 2015. A further £5 million can be saved through improving case management of Crown Court cases and better deployment of ". advocates. The CPS is conscious that it has a controlling hand over the way in which complex very high cost cases are prosecuted including the number of defendants prosecuted; the selection and number of charges; the volume of material used to support the prosecution, and how it Is presented. These key casework decisions not ~ only impact on CPS expenditure but also have a knock-on impact for legal aid and the ;'! Courts Service. Therefore 'flJ@ also need tQrlgorously e~ine the exp~iture t· assoclated with the most complex cases and identify ways of reducing coStS in line with . the decline in CPS provision. However it is inevitable that the vast bulk of future savings must come from reductions in the numberorstaff employed. . -


~ .,


~O. Our analysis indicates that delivering business transformation will enable the department ~ to reduce the number of staff by 1,820 [22%) over 4 years which would deliver annual ~. cash savings of £82 million by 2014-15. To achieve staff reductions of this magnitude would require investment from the government of almost £40 million to fund exit schemes. We have submitted a bid on this basis to the Treasury.

22. The maximum cost reduction that would be delivered through the proposed strategy is £102 million by 2015. £16 million short of the government's indicative reduction in cash expenditure. To move beyond the forecast cost reduction will damage the delivery of front-line services. delay and possibly deny justice and increase inefficiency and costs throughout the Criminal Justice system.



Structured cost reduction - 40%




J.. ..i. "'/h' navs rJ~18nD~ii;:I(1;1.1;; .151<6'0 !',J !.ilW:nfHte tno ":iI:O,~;,j ," ,;:; ,/1' "t- (r..': \ . \-:':(.;.;j.";._),, >.i :,There has !.Jeer! insuffi',ient urne .a fully analy~~ how such ~ larget {~c:1uld achi-:: be 8. 11"~\Jitabjy it would Ineen, ::,il'.Jdilet',;-:11ductinn In. staff numbers, 1I ~OO ahln _ "dditional cost of over £70 m,lJfionl\which would; need full Treasury funding. Oeljverin~) staff reductions to meet tho Irrwer-:;125% target, will be extremely challeljlsing, To reduce even further would inevitably require compulsory redundancles; , ;, I'

Re~triqMld - Ma"8g~meJlt
,J",o .



24, Without




fundamental c:hange,~;n tlTe government policy on prose£utiOiit'9! criminal offence:s1l)1e d,eJ)'artmen.t wdgJd'iI)ipt 6~ble ,"'~fulf~ .. tatutor)·"()t'i.l!.(~3r:\&: :-,"",; ;. b its s staQdardi ·woUldrto.fb~~_tT,lef~h~~~. fa.ryfl- titlJilbfJl"~~~~~,\·~.tli .. j,;;"'f4.;r/p ..:~'\ '; r: r To G.· ,'..'. ..' . . ,'. ,'.'._ .,' ·_'_C of ~ ¥S,etlt.edr.1g.lQe. .~ ~~tJc~~f.lti·~, tIi~:;:-v~J""'~~t~r.",~' ~~--'---- ..---.-"--.~ t;'I(1 Md\Jititr8h:}t·;:courts: S-jlJt:',jX~)lM'9~sJa('t .ilYi~~1ir, thc c.,: f,:l. "~~:", '.' ~::'"~,,
:1.-",_. -_ ..•• -.













26rOL.i,are askec 10 conslcie~th'e'(;PS proposaISA-m::aclll(winp'the ,~arge'l1:f'3nd confrrm thtiJl yoo 'are content.

'" ~,



BO (10) July (29) - Annex A






How can the activity be provided Described in the submission
~ I~~'w can the activitY be ~

at fower cost?

_", .

,;.·;~.f j




"~.y(,"'( .....



-prov'jded ri.6re eff~ctiveIY?
.~ .... ;!.~ ('; ,

.:~:' :.;';,


~i'_;:;)':',rl~~', • ;:i;.t ·r!;


:. ",

Describe(t~n..t.he paper ':-;1"'" "

Can the activity be provided by ~ non~St~te provider in partnership?

Q-tbY.~itl~8ns, wholly'br. ~",.' ".'

, ¥.

No, the role of the prosecutor is statutory. It is theoretically possible that some activities could be undertaken by a non-State provider such as witness care but the
security risks outweigh any small financial gain. Can non-state providers be paid to carry out the activity according to the results they achieve? Some functions, notably advocacy are already undertaken by non-State providers. It would not be in the interests of justice to incentivise by results. External providers are already used for enforcement of the most complex proceeds of crime cases. We will explore whether there are further cost savings from greater use of external cases in both criminal and civil confiscation cases. Can local bodies as opposed to central government provide the activity? Local provision would negate the benefits of scale enjoyed by the CPS and put deliver of core quality standards at Significant risk. There would also be risk of inconsistency in charging decisions and "post code" Justice.