The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

1.1 What is Performance Management?

In seeking to define 'performance management' it is clear that the term is not new to the police service, nor are the challenges involved in embracing the concept unique to policing. There are common principles across the private and public sectors and HMIC has attempted to draw on relevant sources in this report.

Enter 'performance management' into any internet search engine in an attempt to better define the phrase, and the casual researcher is immediately overwhelmed by the sheer scope of literature on the subject.

While the large body of available material speaks volumes for the importance placed on the subject, particularly in the public sector, it also initially serves to disguise the simple yet fundamental function of performance management, which in police terms, is to maintain and improve the service to the public.

This is clearly emphasised in the following references, which are drawn from both police and non-police literature:

"Performance management is not an end in itself. It's one of a set of tools, a way of working, that helps you to identify what needs doing, a means to deliver improvement and a way to maintain high quality services." Improvement Network, 2005

"Both private and public sector organisations face increasing demands to demonstrate improvements in their performance. This requires a strong understanding of past and present performance, enabling the appropriate actions to be taken to ensure organisational aims are achieved. In short, performance management is taking action in response to actual performance to make outcomes better than they would otherwise be." 'Managing Police Performance - A Practical Guide to Performance Management', Home Office et al, 2004

"Performance management is a process which contributes to the effective management of individuals and teams in order to achieve high levels of organisational performance. As such, it establishes shared understanding about what is to be achieved and an approach to leading and developing people which will ensure that it is achieved." 'Performance Management: the New Realities', Armstrong and Baron, 1998

"The term performance management system can be misleading. It can give the impression that it is something separate, something in addition to what goes on in the day to day planning and management of the authority. Rather than being separate, effective performance management arrangements can help integrate planning, review, financial management and improvement systems, to enable managers to make informed decisions and improve services." 'A Manager's Guide to Performance Management', Improvement and Development Agency, 2004

"Managing performance is about more than having an effective performance management system. The elements of performance management, targets, indicators, plans and so on, are important, but they are not enough by themselves. In councils that are good at managing their performance, the people involved, councillors and staff, have a shared understanding of the Council's priorities and of what they need to do to realise those priorities. Because people know what matters most, they can solve problems and overcome barriers quickly. They recognise that the point of managing performance is not to hit targets and fulfil plans as ends in themselves, but to do so in a way that produces high-quality services for local people." Audit Commission, 2003.

Performance management is therefore a process, not an event, which operates as part of a continuous business planning cycle. It does not work in isolation, but rather in a holistic fashion, pervading every aspect of the organisation. In performance management terms, the aim should be to create a culture where high standards and quality of service are part of everyday life of the organisation.

A 'culture' may be defined as a pattern of shared beliefs, values and assumptions which are acquired over time and which shape behaviour within an organisation. But policing is dynamic and cannot sit back and wait for something to develop. A conscious effort is required to make it happen. If people are the key to service delivery and improvement, leadership is arguably the driving force towards achieving it, through actively seeking to establish and reinforce the supporting performance culture and empowering them to act where appropriate.

HMIC considers the development of a fully formed culture of performance management to be a critical aspiration for the Scottish police service, and has therefore sought evidence from forces and common police services, throughout the inspection process, as to what extent this is currently being achieved.

1.2 Potential Confusion of Terms

While the meaning of performance management in the above terms appears straightforward, nevertheless HMIC has noted, both in the course of research and in practice, that it can be taken to mean different things to different people. This may be due, in part, to a lack of knowledge on the part of the practitioners but also as a result of the tendency for commentators to use some phrases and terms interchangeably. Whatever the reason, the potential for confusion exists.

For the avoidance of doubt, the following phrases have been taken by HMIC to mean as indicated below in a policing context:

Inputs are the resources that contribute to production or delivery, such as staff, physical assets and equipment.

Outputs are the products or services of the organisation, such as stop searches or actual policing services provided.

Outcomes are the impacts or consequences for the community arising from policing activity, such as to create safer and stronger communities.

Indicators are the same as performance measures which are monitored to inform on the achievement of an organisational priority, such as monitoring crime rates to determine whether crime is reducing.

Targets express a specific level of performance the organisation is seeking to achieve.

Performance measurement consists of the collection and collation of quantitative and qualitative data and information relating to performance, the processing of the data and its presentation in the form of reports, figures and charts. Performance indicators ( PIs) feature heavily in this process but performance measurement is not synonymous with performance management.

Performance monitoring involves examining the results of performance measurement, assessing any variations in performance indicators and making value judgements about performance, for example, good, bad, indifferent, better, worse, unchanged.

Performance management, as noted above, is a process aimed at improving or maintaining performance and depends heavily on performance measurement and monitoring.

A performance management system establishes a framework for planning, monitoring and revising what an organisation does, towards achieving improvement.

1.3 Building Blocks for an Effective Performance Management System

Having established that a performance management system is a framework, what might it look like and how might this approach assist HMIC in structuring this report?

There is a plethora of performance management models and general guidance, produced both by academics and, notably, in the public sector. While too numerous to itemise individually, they include, in England and Wales, agencies such as the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office, the Improvement and Development Agency (I&Dea), HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, Home Office and Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development ( CIPD). Distinctive Scottish sources are less numerous but, in the current context, this is considered to be of little material consequence, as the basic principles are intended to be applicable generically to all public services.

However, it has proved useful to consider the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. This makes clear to local authorities, police authorities and chief constables what they are expected to demonstrate in fulfilment of their duty of Best Value, the essence of which is to secure continuous improvement in performance. This is complemented by an Audit Scotland guide for councils on the same topic.

More detailed research has allowed HMIC to distil from a number of the guidance documents, the main components considered crucial to an effective system to manage performance. Each of these is examined briefly in turn.

Devolving decision making: ¹

The model was developed by investigating best practice in health, education, policing and local government. The 5 critical features are largely self explanatory. To achieve an effective performance management system one needs:

• real time, robust performance information
• strong leadership and a performance culture
• individual accountability
• challenging review processes
• transparent rewards and sanctions.

Measuring the Performance of Government Departments: ²

This model is also advocated in A Manager's Guide to Performance Management, ³ and Choosing the Right Fabric, a Framework for Performance Information ⁴ and has its origins in Meeting the Challenge. ⁵

While the terminology is different, the key features are broadly similar:

• aspirations align with an organisational vision and priorities
• coherent performance measures and targets provide the basis of management information
• ownership and accountability and rigorous review are self evident
• reinforcement equates to leadership driving a performance culture.

Managing Police Performance: A Practical Guide to Performance Management: ⁶

The guide aims to set out the key principles of performance management along with practical advice for implementing an effective performance management regime in a force or Basic Command Unit ( BCU). It draws on substantial improvement programmes conducted in two English forces, by the Police Standards Unit ( PSU) and a management consultancy. While specifically applicable to England and Wales, the core information in the guide is transferable to any organisation and of relevance to practitioners in Scotland.

The framework shown divides a police force into 3 tiers - corporate, operational and individual - and emphasises the need to get performance management right at each level.

This is achieved across the organisation through 3 headings, each of which sub-divide into some of the more detailed characteristics reflected in the previous models:

• processes - includes clarity of roles at all levels, integrated planning and performance, leadership and review
• people - includes establishing an improvement culture, clearly articulated priorities with individual appraisal linked to performance against priorities
• data and systems - includes the need for timely, accurate and relevant data which is easily captured and reported.

The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 - Best Value Guidance: ⁷

The statutory framework for Best Value under the Act sets out the criteria which Audit Scotland, on behalf of the Accounts Commission, will look for when carrying out a Best Value and Community Planning audit. While currently only applied in practice to local authorities, it is planned that the Scottish police service will be the subject of a similar form of audit by Audit Scotland, in early course. Like performance management, Best Value seeks to deliver continuous improvement.

An authority, which secures Best Value, will be able to demonstrate:

• commitment and leadership
• responsiveness and consultation
• sound governance (including performance management systems)
• sound management of resources
• use of review and options appraisal
• competitiveness and trading
• sustainable development
• equal opportunities
• joint working
• accountability.

HMIC has noted that the ACPOS Finance and Best Value Standing Committee Annual Report 2003-2004 is already structured according to these criteria.

There is currently no single accepted model of a performance management system across the police service, nor does HMIC advocate there should be. Systems will vary across forces and evolve over time to reflect different circumstances. From the foregoing examples, it is however possible to identify a number of key 'building blocks', common to each, which are critical to an effective performance management system for the police.

HMIC considers there are 5 common building blocks or characteristics which provide a useful core template against which to assess the current state of performance management in the Scottish police service. These will form the main chapter headings in the report. The integrity of the EFQM methodology, used initially in the inspection protocol, is maintained with equivalent EFQM headings shown in brackets.

Leadership (leadership) - how the behaviour and actions of management at all levels inspires, promotes and supports a culture of continuous improvement.

Planning and priority setting (policy and strategy, partnerships and resources) - how the organisation determines its priorities, including the use of local consultation.

Ownership and accountability (people and processes) - how the organisation itself is accountable to the public and how priorities are communicated to individuals who are held accountable for delivery and given empowerment to act.

Review (people and processes) - how performance review structures which challenge and support staff and processes are replicated from top to bottom in the organisation.

Meaningful data capture and analysis (processes and results) - how timely, robust and easily captured performance data is used to inform decision making at all levels of the service.

1.4 Public Sector Performance Management in Scotland

The Scottish Executive vision for high quality public services broadly mirrors the improvement aspirations of UK central government, and is set out in the document, 'A Partnership for a Better Scotland'. ⁸ Current spending review plans and targets are arranged by department in 'Building a Better Scotland, Spending Proposals 2005-2008'. ⁹

The Scottish Executive Justice Department portfolio includes police, fire, criminal justice, Scottish Courts Service and the Scottish Prison Service, and has the overall aim of creating safer stronger communities.

The way in which Scottish Executive departments are structured further emphasises its continuing focus on public service performance. A Performance and Improvement Division sits within the Public Services Group and has a focus on providing support to local authorities and public bodies around the performance improvement agenda. There are 4 main areas of activity, all of which potentially impact on the police service:

• Local Government Improvement Team
• Community Planning Team
• Better Cities Team
• Best Value Team.

Best Value, originally a replacement for compulsory competitive tendering, is a duty that applies to local authorities and the Scottish police service. It became a statutory responsibility, under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, as part of the Scottish Executive's drive to modernise the way in which public services are provided. Under Best Value, the Scottish police service must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way it exercises its functions, having regard to a combination of economy, effectiveness and efficiency.

Public bodies have developed their performance management systems to enhance service delivery and improve their accountability. An example of this is the development of the Performance Assessment Framework ( PAF) in NHSScotland. Audit Scotland carries out performance audits of the organisation and management of services, taking account of clinical standards. In addition, local authorities have continued to develop their performance management systems which are also subject to regular scrutiny by Audit Scotland through their Best Value and Community Planning audits.

Audit Scotland, a statutory body established in April 2000, was set up to provide services to the Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts Commission, together ensuring that the Scottish Executive and public sector bodies in Scotland are held to account for the proper, efficient and effective use of public money. The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1992 requires the Accounts Commission to give such directions as it thinks fit for requiring councils, fire and police authorities to publish information to allow comparisons in performance. The results of these directions are commonly known as Statutory Performance Indicators.

In terms of public access to all types of performance information held by public bodies, the Freedom of Information Act 2002, which came into effect in January 2005, provides a further impetus to the police service to ensure its systems are robust enough to sustain close enquiry, without at the same time becoming overly bureaucratic.

1.5 External Monitoring Arrangements for the Scottish Police Service

Given the foregoing, there is an expectation that the police will develop, use, monitor and publish information on performance both at a local level and nationally. This is currently achieved through:

• reporting on progress against the ACPOS Policing Priorities
• reporting on Scottish Executive spending review targets
• reporting on Accounts Commission statutory performance indicators
• the statutory duty to secure Best Value
• HMIC inspections, reviews and statistical return for its annual report
• performance reporting to respective police authorities and the wider public.

It is apparent, however, that some development of the current performance management arrangements is required. In May 2003 ACPOS published its Policing Priorities for Scotland 2003 - 2006 which set out the strategic priorities for the coming years. At this time the need was recognised:

"to develop and implement an agreed and effective framework for the management of police performance to ensure the Scottish police service is consistently able to collect, record, develop, use and report accurately, required performance information in the determined areas of business."

Over the last 2 years, ACPOS has been actively engaged in determining that framework. In May 2005, it established a Performance Management Business Area. HMIC is aware that a report from a short term working group established under the ACPOS Best Value Sub Committee, entitled "Developing a Performance Assessment Model for ACPOS", is currently under consideration. Further developments are awaited in due course. A key area of this work centres around the need for performance data that is timely, accurate, relevant and is easily captured.

In addition, the ACPOS Best Value Sub Committee recently established a sub group to review target setting at a national level, specifically addressing:

• difficulties inherent in setting Scottish Executive 3 year targets which are subject to spending review every 2 years
• baselines utilised
• national versus local target setting
• whether the current suite of indicators reflects the range of services provided by the police service
• the handling of performance information by the media.

Such were the difficulties encountered around the subject matter, the group has not yet resolved fully these issues and concluded that there would be value in a fundamental review of the whole target and indicator setting process.

In addition, the Accounts Commission stated in its report on Police and fire Performance Indicators 2003/2004 ¹⁰ that some doubts existed regarding the reliability of some of the information provided by some forces. An ACPOS review team, again established under the Best Value Sub Committee, has since reported and an Action Plan has recently been implemented.

HMIC notes the considerable work undertaken and in progress in this respect, the basis of which is vital to effective performance management across the Scottish police service.

1.6 Efficient Government

The commitment to improve the performance of public services is complemented by raising efficiency through best use of resources. The potential benefit, in terms of better use of financial resources, is not inconsiderable. Given also that finance for public services is unlikely to increase in relative terms, then additional resources for policing may only come from efficiency gains.

'Building a Better Scotland, Efficient Government - Securing Efficiency, Effectiveness and Productivity', ¹¹ builds on the Best Value regime and Modernising Government agenda. Efficiency savings for all departments, including the Justice Department, are expected to yield £745 million cash releasing savings during the 2005-2008 Spending Review period into which it is incorporated. Further time releasing savings will also be required. The Scottish police service will be expected to contribute to the overall Justice Department target of £30 million cash releasing savings.

In addition, a number of 'work streams' will be examined to release further cash savings, including procurement, managing absence, asset management, shared support services and streamlining bureaucracy.

With regard to bureaucracy, two specific topics are considered by HMIC to be of particular moment to the monitoring of performance. Firstly, the Scottish Executive has established a Joint Scrutiny Forum to develop better arrangements for:

• sharing information
• joint inspection
• exchange of best practice
• common standards and harmonisation of data collection standards.

HMIC is participating in this work and will monitor progress with interest.

Secondly, it is the Scottish Executive's intention to improve and streamline local government performance information, especially in respect of community planning. This will be achieved through close liaison with relevant stakeholders, in order to minimise duplication of effort, standardise requirements and thereby add value.

To ensure delivery, all departments, including the Justice Department, and public bodies are being required to develop project plans for their efficient government projects, including identified lead roles, governance arrangement measures for identifying and tracking benefits and risk management. Thus the police service is encountering further demands in terms of managing its performance, in addition to those already identified.

HMIC notes that efficiency savings are currently monitored and collated by individual forces, with information provided to ACPOS where it is published in its 'Annual Best Value Report'.

The Efficient Government agenda within the Scottish Executive is proving to be something of a catalyst in seeking to evaluate best practice in respect of performance management. HMIC's attention has been drawn to a pilot scheme, newly commenced by the Scottish Executive Performance and Innovation Unit, which has its roots in the 'Compstat' policing model pioneered in New York in the late 1990s.

The project will conduct 3 pilot studies in Aberdeen, Orkney and Edinburgh. The aim is to demonstrate the extent to which the 'Citistat' model, used in Baltimore USA, can be used to inform resource allocation, increase accountability, embed continuous improvement principles and obtain productivity savings within a local authority. In policy terms, the project is prompted both by the Efficient Government Initiative and by the Executive's drive for continuous improvement in service delivery. It highlights the Scottish Executive's willingness to improve public sector performance by referencing good practice from elsewhere.

Having briefly examined the background to police performance management in general, the particular requirements and arrangements for monitoring police performance in Scotland, as well as some of the contemporary influencing factors, this report will now seek to assess the current state of performance management across the Scottish police service against the identified building blocks of:

• leadership
• planning and priority setting
• ownership and accountability
• review
• meaningful data capture and analysis.

« Previous | Contents | Next »