1. Portfolio/Number/Name:COPFS/C1 Alternatives to
Prosecution |
2. Programme / Activity: Please
include a short description The project covers the introduction of
the Driver Improvement Scheme for some
motoring offences (typically speeding)
where, instead of a fiscal fine or other
legal action being taken against them, the
offender attends a driver improvement
course. The project also covers the
introduction of Orders making it possible
to offer fixed penalties for the offences
of driving with no insurance and similar
traffic offences instead of prosecuting
these in the Sheriff Court. |
3. Planned Savings | | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 |
Cash (m) | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Time Releasing (m) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4. Accountable Officer for
delivery | Norman McFadyen, Crown Agent &
Chief Executive |
5. Project Manager | Bill McQueen, Deputy Chief
Executive |
6. EGDG account manager | Carolyn Girvan, Efficient Government
Delivery Group |
7. Quality Impact | Describe any impact on the quality
of service delivery. Be specific and
explain if the expectation is positive,
negative or neutral. A neutral impact on quality of service
delivery is anticipated. |
8. Dependencies | Explain if your savings are
dependant on legislation or other
structural changes being achieved. The projected savings arise from the
introduction of the Driver Improvement
Scheme and the introduction of fixed
penalties for certain offences. |
9. Description of efficiency and
actions to be taken | 9.1 How will the saving be made? Be
specific about number/size of contracts,
staff, posts dates etc. The intention is that by improving
driving skills the offender is less likely
to re-offend. As the cost of the driving
improvement course is borne by the
offender, this is less costly than COPFS
issuing a fiscal fine or commencing
proceedings against the offender. Savings
will also be made by using fixed penalties
instead of prosecuting in the Sheriff
Court. |
9.2 What action is critically
needed to secure delivery of this saving?
Be specific, and name the key action
managers if they are outwith your immediate
management chain (e.g. in an
NDPB.) Guidance has been issued to Fiscals on
the Driver Improvement Scheme. Saving are
however, dependent on the number of reports
submitted by the Police, and whether the
Police themselves issue conditional offers,
in specific driving offence categories. At
this early stage the number of cases being
reported by the Police is below that
forecast and savings are not currently
being accrued at the anticipated level in
respect of the Driver Improvement
Scheme. |
10. Impact on Staffing to achieve the efficiency
gain | If there are to be any changes in
staff numbers (at activity level) to
achieve the efficiency gain, please
indicate how many full time equivalents and
how far you expect savings to be achieved
by natural wastage (show additions as + and
reductions as -). |
| 2005- 06 | 2006- 07 | 2007- 08 |
Gross | | | |
Net | | | |
Explanation | N/A |
11. Benefits | In general, the benefits of the
Scottish Executive Efficiency Plan are the
enhanced outputs from the resources
Ministers have been able to allocate in
SR04. But if there is a direct connection
between this efficiency saving and the
enhancement of a particular service please
describe it here. N/A |
12. Gross/Net Cash Savings | 12.1 Please set out the gross
recurring saving and any offsetting
recurring expenditure. 1.1m |
12.2 Against what budget does this
expenditure and saving fall? Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal
Service. |
12.3 Has this saving been built into your
budget? Yes |
12.4 If so, what is the maximum allowable
expenditure against the budget data, in each
year, for that saving to be
delivered? 2005-06 - 88.6m, 2006-07 - 92.1m,
2007-08 - 94.6m |
12.5 If not, how do you propose to
invest the additional cash back into public
services? N/A |
12.6 What plans do you have to exceed the
required saving? Explain by how much in each
year. There are no plans to exceed the
planned savings. |
13. Time - release savings | 13.1 Please explain any time-releasing
savings indicated at question 3. N/A |
13.2 Please describe the method you
plan to use to calculate the cash
equivalent of those time release
savings. N/A |
14. Measurement and
Monitoring | 14.1 How are you proposing to measure the
expected efficiency benefits (e.g. in terms of
costs, level of output or quality of
service)? Efficiency benefits will be measured by
reference to the reduction on the number of
cases prosecuted. A reduction in the number
of cases prosecuted has the benefit of
releasing Deputes to prosecute other
categories of cases. The cash savings will
be calculated on the basis of the reduction
in the number of cases prosecuted under the
relevant category taking account of the
average unit cost of a case under the
category. |
14.2 What monitoring & reporting
procedures will be put in place to measure the
efficiency savings (How often will progress
towards the target be monitored? Who will have
lead responsibility for reporting progress and
what procedures will be in place?) We will monitor and report to our
Management Board mid-year (September) and
at financial year-end. This will be led by
the Director of Finance who is a member of
the Management Board. |
14.3 Monitoring Data: Sources, Validation
and risks - What data will be used to
measure progress? Is all the required
information quantifiable and readily
available? If not what action will be
taken to rectify this?
- What measures will be in place
to validate the accuracy of the data.
Who will take responsibility for this?
- Are there any issues or risks
relating to how you plan to use the
data? (e.g. accuracy, difficulties in
collection)
Efficiency savings will be
measured using readily available data
from our case tracking system managed
by our Business Innovation and
Improvement Unit who will validate the
output. There are no risks relating to
how we plan to use the data.
|