12. Memorandum submitted by the Northern Ireland
Office relating to the 2009 Departmental Annual Report
1. What impact, if any, will headcount reductions
envisaged by the CSR efficiency programme have on the PSA Target
1 aim of increasing Catholic representation among PSNI officers
to 30% by the end of 2010?
No decisions have been taken by the PSNI and Policing
Board on how efficiencies will be made. It is not expected that
any headcount reductions would impact substantively upon the achievement
of 30% Catholic representation within PSNI. The PSNI are
committed to delivering the 30% target and they will factor this
commitment into any decisions on force strength taken prior to
2011.
2. In target 3, on reconvictions, has there been
a real fall in the reconviction rate, or is the figure given lower
than the forecast rate of reconvictions? (see appendix C's reference
to the 15.3% reduction in reconviction rate against the predicted
rate).
This question relates to target 3 in Appendix B of
the Progress Against SR2004 PSA Objectives and Targets.
The question asks if there has been a real fall in
the reconviction rate. It is not meaningful to compare actual
reconviction rates year-on-year as annual cohorts of offenders
are not homogeneous and each group will have a different (aggregated)
predicted re-offending rate dependent on their age, gender, past
history, type of offence etc.
The target specifies a reduction in reconviction
of five percent compared to the predicted rate for the cohort.
Between 2002 and 2005, the actual reconviction rates for successive
NI offender cohorts have surpassed the 5% target each year.
3. The model currently used for predicting reconviction
rates dates from 1998 to 2000. Is it going to be updated? What
difference is there in the predicted rate for Northern Ireland
and that predicted for the UK as a whole?
Predicted reconviction rates were used in measuring
the SR2004 target. The model was changed for the SR2007 period,
with both Ministry of Justice and Northern Ireland targets now
based on the level of proven re-offending. This has a number
of advantages over the historic reconviction indicator.
There are major differences between the measurement
of reconviction and re-offending
a reconviction occurs if an offender has both committed
and been convicted of an offence within a set time (from the date
of their discharge from custody or commencement of community disposal);
whereas
proven re-offending occurs if an offender has re-offended
during a set time (from the date of their discharge from custody
or commencement of community disposal) and subsequently has received
a guilty finding for the offence or number of offences.
Changing to a re-offending indicator also facilitates
assessment of the impact of re-offending. Rather than the previous
"were /were not convicted assessment", the new indicator
(in monitoring the number of re-offences per hundred offenders)
provides a better measure of the impact of services on those offenders
who cause the greater damage to communities through committing
most crime. These new measures therefore look beyond whether
an individual re-offends or not and reflect the balance between
prolific re-offenders, re-offenders who commit a small number
of re-offences and those who do not re-offend at all.
4. To what degree were the £101 m of efficiency
savings obtained by the end of 2007-08 a result of management
action rather than a result of 'normalisation'? In which areas,
if any, did NIO outputs or quality of service reduce as those
savings were produced?
The majority of the savings were as a result of management
action, ranging from large projects such as the implementation
of new information technology systems to smaller developments
such as contracting out or delivering services in a more cost
effective way. Some savings were as a result of 'normalisation',
for example a large proportion of PSNI savings were achieved through
reduction of Full Time Reserve Officers.
To ensure the maintenance of service quality a process
of self-assessment was adopted within the Department - in line
with best practice outlined by the National Audit Office. A verification
and challenge role was embedded within the Department's Financial
Services Division (FSD). The self-assessment methodology incorporated
key performance indicators, customer surveys and feedback, PSA
targets and service level agreements. In addition, the Department
reported on the maintenance of service quality to HMT on a quarterly
basis.
5. The new PSA on justice for all involves seeking
increased public confidence in the criminal justice system by
2011. What target is being set for the increase, or when will
it be set? How does it compare with the Ministry of Justice target
for England and Wales?
The NIO Justice for All PSA aims to increase public
confidence in both the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal
justice system in Northern Ireland. For both indicators the aim
is to achieve a statistically significant increase (at the 5%
level of probability) in the level of confidence against the baseline
period, the same methodology adopted by the Ministry of Justice.
Therefore, the agreed baselines and targets set for
the CSR07 period, to be achieved by 31st March 2011, are as follows:
- an effectiveness baseline of
35.6% and an associated target of 37.8%, a 2.2% point (statistically
significant) increase.
- a fairness baseline of 58% and an associated
target of 60.8%, a 2.8% point (statistically significant) increase.
Due to the smaller sample size of the Northern Ireland
Crime Survey (relative to the British Crime Survey) the NIO targets
appear more challenging, requiring minimum increases of 2.8% points
(fairness) and 2.2% points (effectiveness), compared with an estimated
1.1% points (for both KPIs) in England and Wales.
6. The justice for all PSA includes targets for
'time to trial' elapsed times, while the Ministry of Justice's
similar PSA envisages an efficiency measure on 'offences brought
to justice'. Why have the two departments taken different approaches
to the same PSA?
The Northern Ireland joint 'Time to Trial' targets
were tailored to the specific Northern Ireland context to complement
the drive by the criminal justice system to address avoidable
delay in criminal case processing - a matter of continuing concern.
The NI PSA thus reflects local priorities.
7. Why will you be unable to set a target until
2010 on reducing the harm caused by organised crime for the new
Safer Communities PSA?
Measuring the harm caused by organised crime is a
new concept that is difficult to both define and measure. In
order to set an informed target we first needed to set a baseline
measure, which was achieved in June 2009. The baseline will be
further refined in 2009 to achieve a clearer picture of the various
types of harm and how they may be identified and measured. This
will allow an informed target to be agreed to reduce the harm
caused by organised crime from 2010.
8. If policing and criminal justice are devolved
to the Northern Ireland Executive during the current reporting
year, how will the two new PSAs relating to those areas be assessed?
Will the Executive be expected or required to take account of
them, or will it begin with a clean slate?
The Northern Ireland Executive's Programme for Government
sets out its plans and priorities for 2008-2011. This includes
a PSA framework of 23 PSAs across the current NI Departments.
The mechanism for the assessment of delivery against PSAs is
a matter for the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister.
Following the devolution of policing and justice,
it will be for a new Justice Minister, in consultation with the
Executive, to decide and agree the priorities for policing and
justice. The Justice Minister will consider the extent to which
the current NIO PSA outcomes and underpinning indicators and targets
might be embraced within the Programme for Government; and determine
if new PSAs should be developed.
9. What will be the impact on the NIO's CSR efficiency
target of £108 m efficiency savings if policing and criminal
justice are devolved, given that nearly two thirds of the savings
are expected in those areas? Will the Executive be expected or
required to take account of them, or will it begin with a clean
slate?
We would not expect devolution to impact on the delivery
of value for money savings.
Budgets and the associated value for money (VFM)
savings are linked to specific business areas, which will either
devolve to the Department of Justice or remain with the future
NIO. This split should not affect the ability of either of the
new Departments to achieve their VFM targets and in total, the
current forecast level of savings should be achieved.
The position the Executive takes on these matters
post devolution is a matter for them and not something on which
the Northern Ireland office would comment.
10. According to the Main Estimates memorandum
you supplied the Committee on 25 June, some expenditure lines
are initially lower than last year's because you expect to top
them up later using accumulate "EYF" under-spends.
How much EYF is available for this? Is there enough to support
planned activity levels?
The EYF available to the NIO published in HM Treasury's
Public Expenditure 2008-09: Provisional Outturn, Paper (Cm 7606),
is as follows:
| Admin
| Programme | Total Resource
| of which
| Capital |
| | |
| Near-cash | Non-cash
| |
| £k
| £k | £k
| £k | £k
| £k |
| EYF stock at 1 April 2009
| 85,610 | 15,225
| 100,835 | 100,835
| 0 | 50,600
|
The full amount has already been factored into budgets
to support, and is sufficient to achieve, planned activity levels
and will be drawn down as required in Supplementary Estimates
over the remainder of the CSR07 period.
December 2009
| 
