The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE: Planning and Priority Setting

As was observed in Chapter 1, the first stage in developing a performance management culture involves setting out the wider aspirations for the organisation. Having established a vision of where an organisation wants to go, it is necessary to plan how it intends to get there.

Business planning is well established in the Scottish police service. The policing environment is characterised by ever expanding demands and increasing public expectations which the police service must take into account when developing its future plans. The policing environment however, has a finite capacity to meet the vast demands placed upon it, hence the relevance of priority setting. The police service has to establish its priorities based on its vision and then link available resources to them. Policing needs to reflect local public desires whilst also considering issues which may be of national importance. In terms of business planning, which is cyclical, a clear set of priorities is required which will not only allow for progress to be monitored but also inform future planning. The number of priorities set must be limited to ensure they are achievable.

The monitoring of performance towards priorities is currently achieved through the setting of indicators and, where set, specifically associated targets. Priorities, indicators and targets can be set at national, force and local levels. It is important that indicators are directly linked to priorities and to the key processes which will attain them. The excessive use of indicators can, in itself, hinder performance.

Consultation is a key aspect of establishing priorities. During research and fieldwork, a recurring theme in regard to a well formed performance management system lay in the adoption of the National Intelligence Model to drive operational performance and through which local and national operational priorities can be considered and reconciled.

3.1 The National Intelligence Model

The National Intelligence Model ( NIM) was adopted by the Scottish police service in 2000. It derives its strength from well-defined national standards, products and terminology and relies upon intelligence and information being analysed using specific techniques. Summaries of problems, whether local, force-wide or national, are then provided within the context of tasking and co-ordinating meetings at appropriate levels, where actions are raised and resources are directed towards resolution of the problem. Key to the success of the NIM is the effective use of intelligence and information, which includes the results of local consultation and the concerns of the local communities.

The NIM levels are used to identify problems locally, nationally and internationally and are defined as follows:

• Level 1 - Local issues - usually the crimes, criminals and other problems affecting a division, sub-division or small force area.
• Level 2 - Cross-border issues - usually the actions of criminals or other specific problems affecting more than one division or sub-division within a force or neighbouring force.
• Level 3 - Serious and organised crime - usually operating on a national and international scale requiring identification by proactive means and response, primarily through targeting operations by dedicated units and a preventative response on a national basis.

The analysis is multi-directional, with consideration at force level of both national and more local issues. This analysis informs a Strategic Assessment which is considered by the force. The force then conducts a risk analysis resulting in a force Control Strategy reflecting all the relevant operational policing priorities. Specific strategic action plans are prepared to address the priorities contained in the control strategy. Similar multi-directional processes are conducted at a local level.

In terms of identifying significant threats within the United Kingdom and, specifically, Scotland, the NIM structure allows intelligence and information to be analysed properly, thus enabling the Scottish police service to identify the high level priorities. The process at a national level results in a Scottish Control Strategy. Therefore successful application of the NIM allows for the development of meaningful operational priorities determined in a logical manner at all levels.

An auditable assessment of risk is an important part of determining relevant priorities. An example of a basic risk assessment matrix is shown below:

Priorities are determined by consideration of perceived impact and the likelihood of them occurring. Using the above matrix as an example, issues which scored 9, high risk and high impact, would be identified as areas of greatest priority. This allows senior managers to use a scoring mechanism to identify priorities.

It is important to place the NIM in the context of a business model which can identify and drive operational policing priorities, rather than hold on to a misconception that it is linked solely to tackling crime issues. Road safety, anti-social behaviour and community tensions also present significant problems that may be addressed through appropriate use of intelligence and information.

If properly managed, the NIM should:

• provide a greater consistency of policing across Scotland
• allow operational strategies to focus on key priorities
• allow priorities to be risk managed
• allow the integration of NIM assessments into business planning
• improve and develop liaison with partner agencies.

3.2 Force Business Planning and the Integration of NIM

The use of NIM processes in relation to the setting of strategic priorities is present in a number of forces but, at the time of the inspection, lacking in others. Without being prescriptive, HMIC considers that the harmonisation of the priority setting process across Scotland is desirable, if effective operational priorities are to be set within forces which link in a meaningful way to those at a national level.

Police business planning processes must, by nature of emerging and developing external influences and factors, be cyclical. The importance of timetabling activity around key dates, for example, the publication of the Scottish Strategic Assessment, allows for informed corporate decisions to be taken on the basis of up to date and assessed information.

The business planning cycle should, amongst other things, take account of internal and external consultation, community planning, past performance, budgets, resource allocation and activity based costing. In 2003 ACPOS approved the application of an activity based costing model within the Scottish police service with implementation left to the discretion of individual forces from the start of 2004/05. As yet this remains to be implemented fully across all forces. The development of operational priorities is established through the NIM process, based on analysis and consultation as previously outlined.

The following examples illustrate the timetabling of activity in a police business planning process and in particular, alignment to the NIM process.

The Strathclyde Policing Model ( SPM) is being developed to minimise duplication of effort and ensure clear linkages between the National Intelligence Model, Community Planning, Best Value, Problem Solving Policing, Divisional Call Handling Units, Briefing and Debriefing, Business Planning and Performance Management.

The SPM Implementation Team is presently engaged in work with staff from Corporate Planning and Development to align the strategic processes of the NIM and the Business Planning processes.

A corporate calendar for tactical and strategic Tasking & Co-ordinating Group meetings and the production of tactical and strategic assessments has been produced. Account has been taken of the production of the UK Threat Assessment by NCIS and also the holding of Scottish Strategic and Tactical Tasking & Co-ordinating Group meetings. Phase 1 of the three-phase plan has positioned the NIM as the central thread of all business planning processes. Phases 2 and 3 will consolidate and develop the NIM into the business planning processes of financial and support services and Community Planning. Phase 3 illustrates the fully developed model.

Strathclyde Police's Integrated Planning Cycle, Phase Three:

Grampian Police's annual planning cycle similarly takes account of the NIM Strategic Assessment at the appropriate points.

Central Scotland Police has restructured the timing of the delivery of the NIM Strategic Assessment and the Strategic Tasking & Co-ordination Group specifically to inform the business planning process.

Scotland currently benefits from the support and guidance of the ACPOSNIM Development Team, established to achieve standardisation of the process throughout Scotland. HMIC is aware that the eight Scottish forces and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency ( SDEA) are at different stages of fully integrating the NIM within an organisational context and is fully supportive of the role of ACPOS in its aim to establish a consistent approach and attainment of a national minimum standard.

However, given the importance of the NIM in business planning when establishing meaningful operational priorities at local and force levels, and its linkages through the Strategic Assessment to national priorities, HMIC considers it crucial that the Scottish police service use the NIM in the most effective manner possible. ACPOS, through the NIM Development Team, has a role in ensuring that this is achieved without delay.

Recommendation 1

HMIC recommends that ACPOS, through the existing work of the NIM Development Team, maximise its efforts to establish compliance with the NIM Minimum Standards (1) across Scottish forces.

3.3 Force Business Planning and Support Departments/Business Areas

Whilst the NIM provides a mechanism for determining operational priorities, it does not necessarily establish all priorities for support departments or business areas, such as finance, human resources, information technology and corporate/strategic development.

In terms of the business planning cycle, HMIC noted that, generally, each support department or business area will develop its own priorities, setting these out in a departmental plan or similar document. These are then considered, through a structured process, with operational business plans, to produce an overarching force plan.

Support departments or business areas generally align their priorities to the overall force vision and have a natural role in supporting certain operational priorities. However, there is also recognition that some support department and business area priorities are of strategic significance. Force responses indicate that such priorities tend to be managed through programme or project boards, with appropriate links to force corporate planning arrangements. Examples from forces include centralising call handling, developing IT systems generally, introducing amended shift rotas and centralised custody handling.

HMIC notes that whilst there is well established and effective integration of support departments or business areas in the business planning cycle, forces are currently at varying stages of actually monitoring the performance of those departments as part of a performance management framework.

3.4 Local Consultation

National, corporate and local priorities should inform the planning process and so it is important to have in place a clear structure for this. Utilising the NIM processes to identify operational policing priorities at all levels can be seen as a stage in a planning process. Local consultation can provide additional important information to develop meaningful priority setting.

The forces that make up the Scottish police service are organised so that the majority of policing effort is delivered locally. As such, HMIC recognises that, following local consultation, priorities, indicators and targets identified at a national level may not be as relevant to each force.

To achieve effective local policing, consultation between the police and all sections of the communities they serve, including the police authority, is vital. During the current inspection, HMIC was pleased to find all forces and common police services regularly engaging in some form of public or user consultation to help identify local priorities.

Various approaches are taken by organisations. These include:

• the levels at which consultation takes place - sub divisional, divisional, force-wide
• who conducts or facilitates - in-house, externally commissioned, in conjunction with partners
• format adopted - ad hoc feedback, formal consultation, force planning days
• methods used - paper forms, quantitative survey, focus group, citizens' panels
• audiences targeted - service users, wider community, partners, hard to reach groups
• frequency - from monthly to triennially.

HMIC recognises that different approaches will be relevant for different consultation questions and audiences. It is crucial, though, that the most appropriate methods are applied to ensure that all views captured are accurate, informative and useful.

Lothian and Borders Police conducts a series of eight focus groups with members of the public and community representatives prior to distributing its main community consultation survey. The groups are facilitated by the Performance Improvement Unit. In addition, Divisional Commanders/ Superintendents attend the groups in order to provide some preliminary input concerning divisional performance. The scene is then set for a wider, informed exchange of views around the relevance of the force goals and priorities. The more qualitative results from this method of consultation allow for deeper understanding of the views and experiences of respondents, that surveys alone are often unable to yield. The results from these groups are then used to inform the content of the force questionnaire, thus ensuring its immediate relevance to current local community concerns, which can then be distributed to a wider number of respondents.

While some variation between forces is inevitable, differences in approach were also evident within forces. While HMIC appreciates the need for flexibility at the local level, forces may wish to consider what advantages there may be in the consistency, comparability and opportunities for shared learning that come from a greater sense of corporacy. To this end some forces either have in place or are in the process of developing, a force consultation strategy or framework, while another is developing a consultation database for improving awareness and sharing learning points.

A number of forces conduct some form of public consultation, usually general public surveys, in tandem with partner agencies. These can include local authorities as well as other community safety partners. Other forces have expressed their intention to follow suit.

Obvious benefits from collaboration include sharing expertise as well as reduced costs, resources and 'survey fatigue' amongst respondents. Depending on the nature of the information collated, joint consultation can also provide data on wider related issues that can help to contextualise responses. The results also potentially offer an opportunity to develop public satisfaction performance indicators. It must be recognised that competing priorities can sometimes serve to limit the amount of influence each individual partner can hope to have on the survey design.

As well as explicit questions concerning public views on priorities, forces are recognising the value of feeding in other types of consultation data to inform local priority setting. Quality of service surveys examining the experiences of those coming into contact with forces, are one such example.

One of the ultimate arbiters of success of a public service body must be the views of those it serves. Across the wider public sector, indicators relating to this aspect of performance tend to come under the heading of quality of service. Academic work within the health field ¹⁴ has identified three dimensions to service quality, namely access to the service, technical proficiency and overall quality of service/experiences. This work will examine whether an emphasis on elements such as access and technical proficiency necessarily has a positive impact on the overall quality of service.

Within areas such as public access and technical proficiency, indicators are relatively easy to identify. Both ACPOS and the Accounts Commission set an indicator relative to emergency calls. Crime trends and the creation of police reports might similarly be seen to fall into the area of technical proficiency.

More difficult to assess are overall quality of service issues. Current measures include complaints against members of police staff and public satisfaction surveys. Despite the obvious importance of user satisfaction, the existing Accounts Commission indicator is rather limited. Under the direction of the Accounts Commission, forces are required only to ask two questions of users concerning quality of service at least once every three years.

Some forces already take advantage of this survey requirement to question respondents more frequently and in more depth on these and other relevant issues. HMIC welcomes this move, and appreciates the benefits in terms of making the process of recall easier for respondents, generating more robust data for analysis and enabling forces to respond more quickly to locally emerging issues.

Grampian Police posts out 300 surveys per month to those who have been in contact with the force. The sample is stratified in accordance with Accounts Commission requirements. On a quarterly basis the results are reported to the Force Police Group, the force Tasking & Co-ordinating meetings and the Stewardship Sub-Committee of the Joint Police Board, and where appropriate, acted upon. As part of its quality of service assessment process, the force has stated its intention to conduct thematic/geographic focus groups to explore issues arising in more depth.

Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary conducts quarterly quality of service surveys. Here too, the results are fed back to force management on a regular basis for consideration. In addition, any respondent with a particular grievance and who is willing to discuss it further, is visited by the Area Inspector with a view to reaching a satisfactory resolution.

HMIC believes that quality of service is central to a holistic view of force or service performance. As such, it should be given greater precedence as an indicator in terms of both priority setting and performance scrutiny. With the exception of Fife Constabulary, those forces with a quality of service strand to their priorities at the present time have tended to restrict these indicators to one or more of those required by the Accounts Commission.

Objective 4 of Fife Constabulary's Policing Plan is Maximising Accessibility and Quality of Service. Under this objective the force is proposing to develop qualitative public perception based performance indicators around aspects of quality of service. These will be identified from the findings of its annual community consultation survey.

HMIC considers this to be a good example of how local evidence may be developed to feed into force priorities in a way that is transparent and responsive to local concerns.

Equally important to performance are an organisation's internal standards of service. In this respect staff feedback is another essential information source for informing local priority setting. Most forces and common police services now conduct some form of paper-based staff survey, though at varying degrees of regularity.

Strathclyde Police commissioned an external agency to design and conduct their first staff survey in February/March 2003. The methodology is such that it not only asks about various aspects of the working environment, but also gauges how important these aspects are to respondents. It also provides respondents with the opportunity to add further comments. The results were well publicised and action plans were put in place to address the key findings.

Lothian and Borders Police questionnaire contains a 'Managing Change' section, which has questions relevant to areas of change in the force. There is also a transparent and systematic process for identifying areas for further action, following on from analysis of the results.

The SDEA uses a similar approach for its questionnaire.

A few, however, rely primarily on fora that involve face to face discussion, albeit formalised and structured in their own way. These include staff/management meetings, appraisals, mentoring, EFQM self-assessment, individual and collective structured debriefs with the Human Resources department. HMIC is concerned that, where there are no formal processes in place for staff to submit their views anonymously, forces risk basing decisions on an incomplete or inaccurate picture of staff opinion. Similar concerns may apply to the reliance on intranet-based staff polls, where savings in time, effort and cost of administering paper-based surveys should be weighed against the loss of respondent anonymity.

As with external quality of service matters, where forces have included an internal quality of service component to their priorities, the indicators adopted have tended to be taken from the Accounts Commission suite. Again Fife Constabulary is the only force intending to reflect the results of its staff surveys in its force priorities and performance indicators. HMIC views this responsiveness to staff concerns as an effective way of reinforcing the value the force places on them.

Police authorities naturally have a role in establishing force priorities. They are routinely engaged in a consultation process with the force during the planning cycle and HMIC received evidence of attendance of members at force planning and awareness days.

3.5 Force Indicator/Target Setting

The planning cycle, based on strong local consultation, allows for clear evidence based priorities to be determined. Performance against these priorities is measured through the establishment of suitable indicators and, where set, targets. Exactly how these are determined, how many are needed, their relevance and value as a true reflection of policing activity, is the subject of much debate.

There is a growing body of academic, policy and practitioner literature around the use of performance indicators and target setting. Few would argue with the basic premise that service providers in receipt of public funds should be accountable to the public for their performance, nor that the public expects sustained improvements in the delivery of services. More contentious, perhaps, is the assumption that setting targets is necessarily the best means of realising this expectation.

From Aiming to Improve, The Audit Commission 2000

Source: Extract from Osborne & Gaebler, Reinventing Government, 1992

Performance measurement cannot take place in isolation, but must be linked to the overall strategy and priorities of the organisation. Otherwise the proposition that 'what gets measured gets done' becomes a double edged sword, whereby inappropriate measurement systems or indicators can have major adverse consequences for management and those to whom the service is provided.

Available research offers little by way of hard empirical evidence of what effect performance targets per se have on the quality or performance of public services. Questions arise, for example, as to whether short term effectiveness in meeting targets compromises longer term efficiency or, for that matter, whether there is conclusive evidence of a positive impact of such measures on public perceptions of service performance.

What is apparent is that the use of targets can be problematic and this was a subject touched on by many chief officers when interviewed by HMIC. Much of the negative comment of relevance here arises fundamentally from the perceived lack of coherence between national targets on one hand and local trends, needs and ownership on the other.

Other difficulties may stem from the way in which targets themselves are applied. For example, not all performance lends itself to quantitative measurement, a point particularly pertinent to public sector services. Key questions include whether meeting performance output targets equates to improved service delivery outcomes and whether the drive to meet prescribed targets actually prevents the police from properly addressing other legitimate concerns.

While HMIC does not express a view on the validity of the arguments for or against target setting in principle, the reality is that the present system relies on performance measurement in terms of indicators and, where considered appropriate, targets.

HMIC acknowledges that all forces are influenced by national priorities and notes that most retain at least some of these within their force priorities. While some have simply adopted the same numerical targets as apply to the service as a whole, others have applied their own target setting processes to generate, typically, non-numeric directional targets indicating improvement or otherwise. A commonly observed technique was the use of baseline averages derived from a number of previous quarters, or years, performance data. This helps to smooth out fluctuations and produces a more representative numerical baseline from which to compare or predict future achievement.

Responsibility for the process of target setting varies between, and sometimes even within, forces. Though the actual department titles differ, more often than not, responsibility rests with the force performance unit or similarly named team, comprising both police and support officers. HMIC again noted that, while organisational structures and departmental names varied considerably, the force performance units generally sit within the main department charged with the responsibility for strategic or corporate development.

HMIC was impressed by the knowledge, skills and commitment shown by the staff in these units. Moreover, in keeping with the general trend towards continuing development, the units within various forces expressed a desire to revise existing practices further. However, frustration at the perceived lack of available guidance in this area was a common observation. While training in related areas such as intelligence analysis is more firmly established, there appears to be scant provision of specialist guidance on decision-making around indicator and target setting.

There is a considerable range of literature on the subject, offering a variety of differing opinions regarding indicator and target setting. Amongst the main criteria to be considered when engaged in indicator/target setting are the following practical considerations:

• relevance of indicator
• qualitative and/or quantitative
• directional or numeric
• if numeric, how to decide on the level
• the contribution to an overall target (disaggregation)
• ease of collection
• sufficient to cover full scope of policing.

While further detailed discussion is outwith the scope of this report, there is nonetheless a need for training or guidance to be made available to those specifically involved in the indicator/target setting process.

Recommendation 2

HMIC recommends that ACPOS consider the training needs of the service around issues of indicator and target setting.

In the meantime forces and common police services continue to differ in their indicator/target setting practices. Some examples of where forces are already incorporating some of the above aspects into their target setting processes are given below:

In Central Scotland Police, Command Areas nominate targets based on their appraisal of local priorities and available resources. The nominations from the three Command Areas are then aggregated to form the Force Target, which is reviewed by the Force Policy Group.

Fife Constabulary has made a conscious effort to move away from solely operational/criminal activity-based priorities, towards those which reflect the performance of the force as a whole. Included in this move is the proposition to also move from a reliance on hard statistics and targets, to more qualitative and quality of life/service indicators. Also proposed is a change from numerical targets to a focus on sustainable, continuous improvement. Although precise indicators have yet to be set, the intention is to develop these from the findings of the force's community and staff perception surveys.

Northern Constabulary's policing plan divides its force priorities into operational and organisational categories. The latter consists mainly of a series of qualitative milestones. Local area and departmental plans set out their intentions or contributions against each relevant force priority, as well as containing their own locally derived priorities.

HMIC acknowledges that, having established its priorities it is up to individual forces to then determine what indicators and, where considered appropriate, targets, are set to fully reflect their performance. Priority setting for forces however has to take account of national priorities, which in turn may lead to the setting of national indicators to ensure consistency.

3.6 National Priority Setting

Policing priorities may be expected to display marked variation between forces if they are to reflect local concerns properly. Yet a number of issues, common across all police forces, demand priority attention, sometimes in a co-ordinated way. These often emerge from public debate, from within the Scottish Executive as matters of policy or legislative change, from within the police service itself or in the context of other agencies charged with scrutinising police service delivery. How these issues of perceived high importance translate into policing priorities is therefore of interest and it is of value to examine what the current national priorities are and how they are established.

National priorities and measures of accountability for the Scottish police service are currently determined through a variety of processes. These are:

• Scottish Control Strategy
• ACPOS Policing Priorities
• Scottish Executive Targets
• Accounts Commission Performance Indicators.

Scottish Control Strategy

The Scottish police service establishes strategic operational priorities based on the Scottish Strategic Assessment which examines the principal threats to Scotland from serious, organised and cross-border criminality. The Scottish Strategic Assessment is provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service ( NCIS) and provides a comprehensive analysis of NIM level 2 and level 3 criminality. This is illustrated by figure A.

Figure A

Intelligence for the Scottish Strategic Assessment is drawn from the strategic assessments prepared by the eight Scottish police forces, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency ( SDEA) and intelligence held by NCIS. The force strategic assessments are, by definition, a longer term, high level look at policing problems which will take into account and report on local needs but in a format that may be aggregated to a higher or lower level.

Decisions regarding the prioritisation of the threats contained in the Scottish Strategic Assessment rest with ACPOS through its Crime Business Area. The Scottish Control Strategy, which flows from this process, therefore reflects the areas of threat and criminality to which the Scottish police service should be giving priority. The Scottish Control Strategy is reviewed every six months by ACPOS to allow decisions to be made on the inclusion of any emerging serious threats.

In essence, the Scottish Control Strategy reflects intent in tackling high level criminality. This is very much in the domain of the SDEA, with appropriate involvement from the eight Scottish forces in terms of responding to specific criminality in particular areas of the country.

In terms of the provision of information on which to set strategic direction, a number of NIM level 1 issues which may be of significant national interest, such as serious violent crime and youth disorder, and which demand significant resource levels in each force, are not currently considered within the Scottish Strategic Assessment. Therefore these do not feature in the Scottish Control Strategy.

HMIC considers that this reflects a gap in the current assessment structure which needs to be filled by way of identification of a full range of operational policing issues to inform policy and priority setting at the national level.

ACPOS Policing Priorities

The ACPOS'Policing Priorities for Scotland 2003 - 2006' was launched in May 2003. In what was the first publication of its kind, ACPOS set out its strategic priorities for the ensuing 3 years.

In brief, the document describes a series of operational and support priorities linked to four over-arching priority areas - delivery of police performance assessments, community engagement, intelligence led policing and improving police productivity.

Table 1 is a summary of the document and shows how achievement of the priorities is articulated through the use of performance indicators, numerical targets, and textual statements of intent which refer specifically to neither targets nor indicators.

Table 1: ACPOS Policing Priorities for Scotland 2003-06

HMIC is aware that the ACPOS 'Policing Priorities' do not currently align with the contents of the Scottish Control Strategy, but acknowledges they were set outwith the Scottish Strategic Tasking and Co-ordinating process. Furthermore, HMIC considers that the way that specific targets and indicators are mixed with statements reflecting additional priority areas, within the text of the document, lends little to the clarity of a document at the forefront of priority setting for the Scottish police service.

The current ACPOS 'Policing Priorities' document relates to the period up to the end of the financial year 2005-2006 and HMIC understands that revision is being actively considered. The process model for national priority setting outlined later in this chapter may be useful to ACPOS in considering a revision.

Scottish Executive Performance Indicators and Targets

Though not articulated as priorities per se, certain areas of policing across the service are additionally highlighted by the Scottish Executive as being worthy of particular focus and are linked to providing a strong response to matters deemed by them to represent public concerns.

Since May 2001 the Scottish Executive has, through successive Spending Reviews, established a range of key performance indicators and targets intended to measure, monitor, and drive improvement of police efficiency. In practice the Scottish Executive has concentrated exclusively on operational priorities. These targets and indicators are outlined below in table 2:

Table 2: Scottish Executive Targets 2003-06

From April 2005, following Spending Review SR2004, a further suite of targets for the Justice Department is set out in 'Building a Better Scotland'. ¹⁵ A significant difference lies in the move from centrally driven targets to targets derived through stakeholder consultation:

Objective 1 - Targeting the causes of crime and tackling crime directly especially violent crime

• Target 1 - to continue to increase the police clear up rate for serious violent crime (desired level of improvement to be discussed with police forces)
• Target 2 - an increase in the number of criminal networks disrupted (the number to be set in consultation with law enforcement agencies)
• Target 3 - a 10% reduction in the number of young offenders
• Target 4 - a 10% increase in the number of drug mis-users entering treatment.

Objective 2 - Reduce re-offending

• Target 5 - a 2% reduction in reconviction rates in all types of sentence.

Objective 3 - Modernising the courts and legal system (in partnership with Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS)

• A 10% reduction in High Court trial adjournments
• 60% of Sheriff Summary and District Court cases to be disposed within 26 weeks of caution and charge.

As previously noted in the introduction, an ACPOS Best Value Sub Committee working group is still considering the detail of the police contribution to the latest set of targets. However, it is of note that the Scottish police service is, in effect, during 2005, managing two sets of Scottish Executive targets, with the inherent difficulties and potential confusion that entails.

Accounts Commission Performance Indicators

Under the terms of the Local Government Act 1992, the Accounts Commission issues an annual Direction to local authorities (including police forces) specifying a range of performance information, in effect performance indicators, to be published. This information is intended to assist in making appropriate comparisons between the standards of performance achieved by different authorities in a financial year, and individual authorities from year to year. In this way the Accounts Commission, aided by Audit Scotland, aims to hold forces to account for the proper, efficient and effective use of public funds. An annual guide is published by Audit Scotland providing more detailed information on the process and the indicators.

At a national level the Accounts Commission also reports on force performance by way of year on year comparisons and/or individual progress against the Scottish Executive targets. HMIC is aware that this presentational format remains a matter of concern within the service. The main concern stems from the fact that the Scottish Executive targets are intended to reflect the overall performance of the Scottish police service, where each force will contribute in a different way to that total, whereas, the Accounts Commission figures attribute the national target equally to every force, having no regard to how that target fits in a local context.

The current suite of Accounts Commission Performance Indicators is outlined below in table 3:

Table 3: Accounts Commission Performance Indicators

The Accounts Commission is an independent body which uses its own professional judgement as to the indicators it sets and, whilst consultation takes place with stakeholders including the police service and HMIC, the ultimate decision on the resultant indicators rests firmly with the Accounts Commission.

That said, HMIC acknowledges that every effort is generally made by the Accounts Commission not to set indicators that would be of limited or no value to the Scottish police service, and that this aim is the basis for continuing dialogue and consultation.

There is a view within the Scottish police service, shared by HMIC, that the ACPOS policing priorities, Scottish Executive targets and Accounts Commission statutory performance indicators, are each narrow in their focus, being predominantly crime related, and therefore do not adequately reflect police performance over the full range of policing activity.

3.7 Monitoring of National Priorities

Scottish Control Strategy

HMIC is aware that this is an underdeveloped area. As has been observed, in seeking to determine the high level policing priorities, ACPOS considers all aspects of threat contained in the Scottish Strategic Assessment and prioritises activity accordingly, resulting in the formulation of a Scottish Control Strategy. In recognition of an apparent gap in the performance measurement process, the Scottish Tactical Tasking and Co-ordinating Group, in December 2004, discussed how to measure performance against the National Control Strategy. As a result they requested that the ACPOSNIM Development Team examine this area with a view to providing a solution. It remains under review and HMIC is aware that ACPOS is considering the formation of a specific short term working group to examine the measurement of performance in this area.

HMIC is encouraged by these developments which link closely to recommendations set out later in respect of national priority setting.

Comparative work carried out by HMIC suggests that, prior to putting in place any indicators, each identified priority contained in the control strategy should be thoroughly examined in order to provide a fully contextualised picture of the threat or problem to be tackled. This assessment stage is important as it effectively introduces a baseline, or datum point, from which to measure impact and harm reduction at the end of the planned policing activity. HMIC believes that it is difficult to introduce a measurement process into this area without fully articulating the nature of the problem through detailed analysis.

HMIC notes that the establishment of a baseline is undertaken in certain parts of the control strategy, however, to include this exercise in all priority areas would allow for meaningful and informed indicators to be set, both numerically and qualitatively. HMIC considers that this challenging area for further development falls within the remit of the proposed ACPOS working group.

ACPOS Policing Priorities, Scottish Executive and Accounts Commission

A range of performance indicators and targets underpins the priorities for the Scottish police service and provides a focus for monitoring progress towards their achievement. The actual collation of information is undertaken by forces who report individually to the respective bodies as, at present, no central repository exists. There are currently a number of structures which influence how these indicators and targets are set and monitored to ensure they are 'fit for purpose'.

Supporting the ACPOS Best Value Sub-Committee, the Performance Indicator Working Group ( PIWG) is a multi-agency forum, chaired by ACPOS and comprising members of external bodies including Audit Scotland, the Scottish Executive, Crown Office, CoSLA and HMIC. The Group is tasked with developing a partnership approach to performance measurement, albeit at a tactical level, with a view to rationalising varying approaches to performance monitoring. An example of this is the adoption by Audit Scotland of the Scottish Executive's indicators within their own suites of indicators. In addition, the Scottish Executive targets are almost entirely reflected within the ACPOS Policing Priorities. HMIC recognises the potential gains to be made in terms of tighter focus, better co-ordination and the minimisation of duplication of effort, which this level of co-operation provides.

A second sub group, the Performance Indicator Practitioners Group ( PIPG), comprising police staff only, co-ordinates the development and maintenance of the Scottish Executive and Accounts Commission indicators.

Members of the PIWG and PIPG jointly prepare the 'Scottish Police Service Performance Manual' which is intended to rationalise the diverse approaches to performance measurement, improving co-ordination and avoiding duplication of effort. The manual however does not include reference to the ACPOS Policing Priorities and has recently been shown to be inconsistent with the Audit Scotland guidance.

While these structures have been in place for some time now, as previously highlighted, there are concerns expressed by a number of partners around existing national indicators. Here too, as with priorities, questions concerning their 'fitness for purpose' and relevance to policing activity generally, as well as to each force specifically, have been raised. Other concerns include matters of consistency in their definition and counting conventions, the reliance on quantitative output measures and the application of numerical targets.

HMIC is aware that Audit Scotland recently commissioned a review of its statutory performance indicators, seeking views from a range of stakeholders. This forms part of an ongoing process by which the Accounts Commission seeks to ensure that performance indicators remain relevant and fit for purpose.

3.8 Public Satisfaction Measures

One of the most challenging areas for the police service is the measurement of public satisfaction. At a national level this has historically been measured by Audit Scotland through its public satisfaction indicator and the Scottish Crime Survey, now known as the Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey ( SCVS). The latter measurement is a public consultation exercise funded by the Scottish Executive. It is used to gather information from a representative sample of Scottish adults on victimisation rates as well as perceptions of crime, criminal justice partners and processes. The information is intended both to inform and monitor the impact of government policy. Until recently the survey was conducted at fairly infrequent intervals, once every three or four years. Now, additional funding has allowed for a more continuous, annual, rolling programme of consultation modules to be conducted. The sample size has also been extended to permit comparison of results down to police force area.

A review of the survey content revealed that many of the policing related questions were no longer considered relevant. While some changes have since been made, HMIC believes there remains scope for further focus on policing issues. As identified by an independent review, ¹⁶ the situation has been exacerbated by the intermittent nature of the survey, leading to other problems including a lack of management continuity. Opportunities to review the survey questions are available to members of the SCVS Advisory Group. However, since membership is restricted to Scottish Executive staff and HMIC, there are no representatives from the criminal justice organisations themselves or from the general public.

HMIC believes that the introduction of a more evidence based approach to the review of the police-related modules of the survey would strengthen it. As already shown, all forces engage in some form of consultation with their communities. The value of regular, local consultation to identify matters of interest to local people concerning service delivery is self-evident.

But these findings can also be of value at the national level. The principles supporting priority setting suggest that the results of individual force surveys be fed upwards for wider consideration at a national level. HMIC believes that this same evidence could usefully assist in informing the nature of questions to be included in the SCVS. Thereafter, the SCVS could be a valuable indicator of police performance that is reported on a regular basis, in the same way as the British Crime Survey is used in England and Wales.

Recommendation 3

HMIC recommends that ACPOS engage with the Scottish Executive to consider establishing a mechanism for feeding evidence from force consultation exercises into the design of the policing questions in the Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey, and allow its use for future performance monitoring.

3.9 Identified Issues

HMIC acknowledges the unavoidably lengthy nature of the analysis undertaken in order to reflect accurately where the Scottish police service stands in respect of local and national priority setting and associated measurement activity.

It should now, however, be clear that legitimate questions result from the analysis as to whether the Scottish police service has a sufficiently clear direction from the range of disparate internal and external priorities it currently faces and whether the indicators and targets, in turn, adequately reflect the performance of the Scottish police service. The key areas of difficulty can be summarised as follows.

Alignment of Priorities

While there is some evidence of alignment across key stakeholders in terms of a number of priorities, indicators and targets, a lack of connectivity is nonetheless evident in other areas. The gaps become clearer when set out in tabular form shown in table 4. No account is taken in the table of priorities arising from the Scottish Control Strategy, as it currently only deals with high level criminality and not level 1 issues. 'X' indicates that the indicator or target is not included.

Table 4: Current priorities/indicators

Given the roles of the Accounts Commission and the Scottish Executive in holding the police service to account, it follows that ACPOS Policing Priorities should take proper cognisance of their respective priorities when deciding upon its own. However, HMIC is aware of the concerns around current priority areas, in terms of their relevance to policing generally and to forces specifically. A major stumbling block would appear to be a lack of coherence and co-ordination in the existing process, despite there being in place a number of consultation processes between stakeholders. In addition to the lack of alignment in priorities, there is no mechanism which allows for the central collation of performance information.

National v Local Priorities

The HMIC report 'Local Connections', ¹⁷ commented upon the growing acceptance by forces that consultative processes require a strong citizen focus of listening to community concerns in establishing policing priorities, rather than merely imposing policy decisions driven by national targets. The report stated that one of the main inhibitors to developing a local performance ethos was the need to observe national targets and indicators set by the Scottish Executive and the Accounts Commission. HMIC recognises a great deal of good work in this respect but there remains a need to ensure that the setting of national priorities is properly harmonised with community aspirations and the requirements of community planning.

Public Satisfaction

The intention of ACPOS, the Scottish Executive and the Accounts Commission is to give weight to matters of significant public interest and concern, balanced against professional knowledge and evidence of how these might be represented. In fact, the balance of priorities for all three tips towards the operational side of the service and, more specifically, to crimes against the person. The Accounts Commission has widened this focus to consider some areas of service quality, both internal and external. It is the only one of the three bodies to set an indicator that tries to gain a direct measure of customer satisfaction outcomes, albeit only every third year, a situation which appears to HMIC to be unsatisfactory.

Support Department or Business Area Functions

The nature of policing is complex, having to cope with demands as diverse as local antisocial behaviour and global terrorism. So too are the factors that will influence incidences of, and solutions to, problems of criminal activity and disorder. No less important is the organisational support that is essential if the service is to be able to meet these demands and provide a quality service to public and staff alike. Thus HMIC would argue that an effective approach to priority setting and thereafter measurement and monitoring, should consider a balanced and holistic picture of policing, involving not only operational priorities but also those relevant to business support and internal and external quality of service.

3.10 The Future of Priority Setting?

It is vital to establish a clear direction for the Scottish police service that will allow it to focus on the issues which matter most to the public. It is clear from the foregoing that the current process of priority, indicator and target setting could be improved.

The Scottish Strategic Assessment does not currently consider NIM level 1 issues such as serious violent crime and anti social behaviour. Taking account of this gap, and building on the national work in progress, the process model set out below at figure B, is used by HMIC to demonstrate how level 1 issues, which are already an integral part of force strategic assessments, might be included in a more comprehensive Scottish Strategic Assessment, from which a broader Scottish Control Strategy can be derived. This control strategy would in effect establish the operational policing priorities for the Scottish Police service.

Recommendation 4

HMIC recommends that ACPOS engage with NCIS with a view to determining a mechanism to provide strategic analysis which looks across NIM levels 1, 2 and 3 and which will inform the Scottish Strategic Assessment and allow a control strategy to be set reflecting operational policing priorities at local, force and national level.

Figure B

To obtain a full picture, however, priorities relating to support departments or business areas must also be included. As was observed at force level, support departments or business areas develop their own priorities as part of business planning. Most will link to operational priorities and, therefore, will be included in the control strategy. A number, however, will relate to strategic priorities of national significance, for example the implementation of Airwave and the National Performance Development Review system, which will not be taken into account in the control strategy. Management for such issues currently rests with the appropriate ACPOS business area.

ACPOS has recently undergone restructuring and has identified 10 business areas to provide the appropriate focus for policing in Scotland: Crime, Diversity, Finance Management, General Policing, Information Management, Personnel and Training, Professional Standards, Road Policing and the recently formed Criminal Justice and Performance Management business areas, as shown below in figure C.

Figure C(taken from ACPOS annual report 2004/05)

HMIC recognises the challenge in articulating the activity of each of the business areas in a performance management and performance measurement context, including managing the linkage with national priorities and emerging developments in, for example, a change in law or advances in technology.

However, the ACPOS business areas would seem to be the natural channels for identifying these strategic priorities, focused through the Performance Management Business Area. HMIC also acknowledges the work which ACPOS has undertaken through the Finance Management Business Area and Best Value Sub Committee to develop a performance management framework which would allow ACPOS to monitor and manage both operational and support priorities effectively.

It is important that further strategic consideration be given by ACPOS when priority setting to take account of not only the operational priorities derived through the control strategy, but also the support priorities identified by the Business Areas. The influence of other strategic stakeholders, for example, the Scottish Executive and/or the Accounts Commission must also be taken into account.

It is not for HMIC to prescribe the precise means by which priority setting is achieved, but it would require the establishment of an ACPOS strategic oversight group or similar mechanism, as illustrated in figure B, involving existing groups such as ACPOS Council and the ACPOS Business Areas. Such an arrangement would offer the prospect of priorities being set for the Scottish police service in a manner which more accurately reflects the range of services it provides. Subsequent involvement of the Scottish Executive and the Accounts Commission in this process would further provide the basis for a co-ordinated view of policing to be established, building on existing consultation and liaison arrangements.

Recommendation 5

HMIC recommends that ACPOS establish a formal arrangement whereby strategic oversight can be applied to the setting of national priorities which reflect the wide range of services the Scottish police service provides. The arrangement should include consultation with the Scottish Executive and the Accounts Commission and be timed to align with business planning cycles.

The identification of priorities in consultation with the Scottish Executive and the Accounts Commission would also provide a strong basis for co-ordinated activity around performance measurement in the Scottish police service. Earlier in this chapter HMIC identified the difficulties encountered by the Performance Indicator Working Group in seeking to establish better alignment in the individual scrutiny arrangements used by ACPOS, the Scottish Executive and the Accounts Commission, to monitor performance, including the setting of indicators and, where set, targets. This, when linked to the unco-ordinated publication timetable used to provide information on performance, has the unintended consequence of confusing rather than informing the public.

Consequently, HMIC would support the establishment of a strategic multi-agency steering group to build on the proposed arrangements to set priorities for the Scottish police service. This group, as an adjunct to the amended arrangements for ACPOS proposed by HMIC, would allow each organisation to set and develop its monitoring structure in a more co-ordinated manner.

ACPOS, the Scottish Executive and Audit Scotland, on behalf of the Accounts Commission, would then have an opportunity to identify a co-ordinated set of indicators and targets linked to priorities which would satisfy their particular needs and be subject to a properly co-ordinated schedule of publication of performance reporting.

Indeed, there already exists a high level Scottish Police Best Value Group with representation from ACPOS, the Convenors Group (representing police authorities), the Scottish Executive, Audit Scotland and HMIC, in which these issues have, from time to time, been discussed. HMIC believes that, subject to a review of representation on that group, it could become the strategic steering group envisaged.

Recommendation 6

HMIC recommends that ACPOS engage with the Scottish Executive and Audit Scotland towards the establishment of a strategic steering group, involving representation from each, to co-ordinate performance measurement and reporting in the Scottish police service. It also recommends that a priority area of activity for the strategic steering group should be a fundamental review of existing performance indicators and targets and the processes for identifying these, with a view to establishing a systematic approach to performance monitoring which meets the needs of all partners.

In summary, what is needed is a balanced approach to assessing and driving public service performance that is realistic about the complexity of public service provision and the internal and external factors that influence it. Such an approach must be able to take cognisance of any national requirements, whilst also meeting specific public demands for local service delivery improvement in a way that is both visible and meaningful to local communities.

The same process model also potentially provides a vehicle for continuity of national initiatives, for example Safer Scotland. The rolling programme of initiatives could dovetail into the problem areas identified through the strategic assessments and provide high profile responses. A tiered approach to national initiatives may allow some forces legitimately to opt out of specific challenges, based on the force and local assessments, whilst tackling relevant issues, again identified through proper assessment.

HMIC is aware that the issue of Safer Scotland campaigns was recently discussed at the ACPOS Crime Business Area and welcomes the agreement between members that Strategic Tasking and Co-ordinating should drive national campaigns.

« Previous | Contents | Next »