« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER FOUR: Ownership and Accountability
Having established the desired priorities, outcomes, indicators and targets, the focus turns to delivery. Organisational leaders will wish to establish a culture of high performance throughout each constituent part of their organisation to ensure the attainment of stated outcomes.
HMIC noted that the extent to which performance management systems were embedded within each of the forces and common police services varied considerably. While the majority of organisations do not yet have a fully matured culture of performance, they are making progress with positive development of processes and practices.
As has been noted, within existing performance management systems there is clear evidence of chief officers and directors taking ownership of strategic performance issues. This is further evidenced by their direct involvement in the regular review of performance, outlined in the next chapter.
In simple terms, establishing ownership relates to individuals accepting personal responsibility for key performance aspects and, at managerial level, the performance of the team. Individuals should recognise that they will be scrutinised and be held accountable for performance. Just as important, however, within this context, is the need to ensure that people within the organisation are empowered to achieve real improvements in service delivery and do not feel unnecessarily constrained by organisational barriers.
4.1 Communication
In order to establish ownership and accountability, the first step is the effective communication of the desired outcomes of the organisation and the chosen priorities on which to focus.
HMIC found a number of common methods being used by forces and common police services to deliver their key messages. These included:
- the personal issue to all staff of force plans for the coming year
- publishing of force plans on intranet sites
- the use of internal publications, leaflets and posters
- establishing a force conference or similar forum, where all staff benefit from direct contact with senior management.
In addition, most organisations also reinforced these messages through the regular circulation of performance updates, as well as ensuring there was clear information arising from tasking and co-ordinating meetings in relation to ongoing operational priorities.
The recently revised Strathclyde Police communications strategy has been devised to have direct linkage with the force's NIM control strategy. Having carried out a review of the previous strategy, the force identified a gap in the communication of consistent and relevant information to staff within the organisation and to its varied external audience.
The revised communications strategy includes a specific Corporate Communications role to provide clear direction on communications, backed by professional advice, expertise and tactics to support delivery of the business plan and force control strategy. The key initiatives emanating from the force control strategy will be examined by Corporate Communications where plans will be drawn up to ensure the relevant audience receives only the relevant information.
The crucial area in communicating organisational priorities is ensuring that it is relevant to the individual and that the individual is clear about the personal message it conveys. Naturally, personal briefing was found to be the most common method of achieving this.
Either through entire executive teams, individual chief officers visiting command areas and departments or through structured awareness and feedback meetings throughout the year, the visibility of the force executive was generally found to be high. This was clearly appreciated by members of the relevant focus groups spoken to by HMIC.
In general terms, considerable evidence was also presented regarding the involvement of local senior and middle management in regular briefings of operational or departmental personnel, particularly in relation to the delivery of key messages. This was reflected in the ability of officers and support staff, within focus groups, to explain the main force and local priorities and where these may be found.
This was not, however, a universal finding and HMIC was disappointed to hear from some front line operational officers who experienced infrequent contact with senior management in a briefing or information sharing context. The continued need to focus on effective communication cannot be overstated.
Recommendation 7
HMIC recommends that forces and common police services continue to ensure that organisational priorities are effectively translated in a meaningful way to all members of staff whatever their role.
4.2 Establishing Ownership and Accountability
HMIC noted that, within the existing performance management systems, the need to establish ownership and agreed lines of accountability at different levels of the organisation is clearly recognised.
At the various levels of the organisation, actions are directed to those individuals best placed to ensure their achievement and these actions are recorded and time bound. At managerial level, ownership is established for strategic actions leading to key actions for individuals throughout the organisation. Managers are responsible for the performance of their departments or command areas, as well as for their own personal performance. Team leaders are similarly responsible for the performance of their teams. Evidence for this was provided through specific examples of action plans and minutes of meetings in which responsibilities are clearly set out.
As part of its structured performance system Northern Constabulary requires every officer to receive a performance review from their immediate supervisor 3 times a year. In this meeting past performance is discussed and future actions agreed. These actions are tailored to the rank and post holder involved to ensure that the actions are directly relevant. For example, a constable's action plan could include a greater road traffic emphasis to reflect the local and force road safety aims.
In addition, annual action plans set by the area command to achieve force targets have clearly named persons responsible for the monitoring and delivery of key aspects of the plan. This allows the commander to have clear reporting lines, holds individuals to account and serves to reinforce the performance culture through effective communication of organisational priorities.
A small number of forces establish lines of accountability, particularly for support departments or business areas, through the use of service level agreements, or similar plans, linked to organisational outcomes. HMIC noted the intent of a number of other forces to develop this area and utilise such plans as a means of structured accountability.
Within Fife Constabulary the Human Resources Department annually sets development activities in support of the policing plan and the ACPOS People Strategy 2003 - 2013. Staff are invited to choose which activity they wish to participate in and a member of staff is assigned lead responsibility. Action against the activity is then monitored at quarterly intervals at the departmental meeting.
This year each of the functional units within the department was asked to set performance indicators. These are reported on at regular intervals at the unit head meetings. An end of year report will be generated for the force based on these indicators to show how the department performed and how it contributed to the policing plan. Fife Constabulary believes the approach promotes accountability and the spirit of continuous improvement within a framework geared to support the policing plan.
Three forces also provided evidence of the direct formal monitoring of team and individual performance, with another stating its intent to develop this area. The type of information collated in relation to operational officers remains fairly limited. Presently it includes incident attendance, number of intelligence submissions, crime reports submitted, crimes detected, the resultant detection rate, cases submitted to the procurator fiscal and the number of fixed penalty/conditional offers issued. The rationale of collation of information at area command level lies in the fact that first and second line supervisors are in the habit of collecting this information anyway in the course of their supervisory duties, albeit on a less formal basis.
Whilst the type of information may differ slightly between forces, it is collated either monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly and tends to be in the form of simple spreadsheets allied to existing IT. Fieldwork by HMIC indicates similar systems in a number of forces in England and Wales.
In addition, individual and team performance would appear to be monitored more frequently in departments where the process itself is easily measured in productivity terms. Some SCRO departments, force contact centres and a number of similar departments have examined their processes and identified a guide to what average productivity should be. Naturally, this is more applicable to departments where processes are repetitive and similar in nature and allows departmental managers to challenge poor performance and provide support as required.
However, a productivity approach should be complemented by stringent quality control to ensure that the calibre of service provision is not sacrificed by maximising throughput. HMIC noted evidence that this important factor, where relevant, was recognised and addressed.
HMIC acknowledges there are many factors which should be considered in determining an individual's performance and the quantitative information should be used only as an indicator to prompt more in depth investigation where appropriate. While there are clearly advantages in formalising what is, after all, a legitimate function of line management, a limited quantitative measure of output, be it for team or individual, must not be mistaken for a complete picture of performance.
A number of forces also publish performance information by station or local policing area and the local officer in charge of the station or area is held to account for that performance.
The effort to drive performance improvement through the monitoring of team and individual performance is undertaken to ensure that poor performance is challenged and good performance acknowledged. Some have termed this as 'intrusive supervision', others simply as 'good management', each acknowledging the need for any area of poor performance to be supported to bring it back on track.
The key to performance improvement depends on what action is taken with the information available. During the fieldwork HMIC became aware that if individual performance is perceived solely to relate to the targets and indicators being monitored, then this can lead potentially to a reduction in the quality of service delivered and can, in fact, in an operational environment, lead to ethical questions about the actions being taken to achieve the targets. Staff morale could be seriously affected. Clearly a balance must be struck between monitoring of performance via performance measures and ensuring that the measures do not become an end in themselves.
A number of examples of how good performance is recognised and rewarded were highlighted to HMIC during the inspection, which again bring into focus elements previously discussed under effective leadership and communication. Typical examples were:
- the senior manager simply being complimentary regarding performance by personally speaking to the individual or team
- informal e-mails praising good work
- acknowledgement of good work in force publications
- positive performance review notes for an individual's file
- recommendations for local or force commendations
- force awards schemes, an example of which is shown below.
Strathclyde Police has based its Excellence Awards scheme on the CoSLA quality awards. The award categories are aligned to the force business principles of people, customer focus, quality and operational strategy. Entries are submitted via commanders or heads of department and illustrate an area of particular good work or a particular initiative which is linked to one of the business principles. A judging panel then considers the relevant entries and short lists them. Following presentations on each short listed entry an awards ceremony, hosted by the chief constable, is convened and winners chosen. All entries have a short summary included which is disseminated within the force to spread good practice.
4.3 Staff Appraisal
All organisations utilise staff appraisal systems to monitor and report on individual performance. There are obvious benefits in having all staff clearly focused on what they have to do to contribute towards organisational priorities, linked to personal development and training. It is important for organisations to focus effort on staff development in order to enhance performance.
There is, however, some disparity in the way this is achieved. At least two forces have moved away from the current Police Advisory Board for Scotland ( PABS) model for staff appraisal, while common police services such as the Scottish Police College and the SDEA rely on an amalgam of systems based on the seconded officer's 'home' force.
These and other perceived deficiencies have been recognised by ACPOS and a new National Performance Development Review System for the Scottish police service is currently under consideration. One of the key aspects of the proposed system is a stronger linkage between personal and organisational performance. HMIC notes this ongoing work and will continue to monitor developments.
4.4 External Accountability
The tripartite arrangement ensures that chief constables are held accountable to the public through governance arrangements involving the police authority, comprising local elected officials, and the Scottish Executive. The Accounts Commission seeks to monitor police performance through the use of statutory performance indicators, while HMIC fulfils an independent role in ensuring effectiveness and efficiency through inspection. Locally, command areas are also subject to some scrutiny from their locally elected representatives, MSPs and MPs and various community based arrangements. The emerging statutory requirements of community planning will be examined in the following section.
An important arm of the tripartite arrangement is the relationship between chief constables and their respective police authorities. During inspection visits, HMIC was pleased to record the many positive comments made by chief constables in terms of how effective this working relationship is in practice, based as it is on mutual trust, co-operation and consultation. This view also receives support from a police authority perspective and reflects the situation HMIC finds across its range of inspection activity.
As well as the statutory reporting requirements, where police authority members receive and scrutinise performance information provided by the force, there is also a more pro-active element of oversight provided by a structure of police authority sub-committees. These vary in name and constitution between forces but generally cover areas such as physical resources, human resources, complaints against the police and Best Value.
Nonetheless HMIC noted from comments made by a number of forces that, in practice, there would appear to be differing levels of actual scrutiny carried out by the police authorities and sub committees. Despite this, and in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, HMIC believes the current police authority scrutiny arrangements of police performance to be soundly based and capable of enhancement, through dialogue, without the need for fundamental change.
Chief constables have a duty under section 15 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 to submit an annual report to the police authority on policing within their force areas. Recently some forces have moved away from a strong focus on statistics in favour of trying to provide a more contextualised report on their performance. This change is based on the premise that raw statistics are of little meaning to the public and there is a need to provide a more holistic view of what the force has set out to achieve.
The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 Best Value guidance also suggests that public performance reporting should, amongst other things, cover future priorities and be open and honest about past performance. Section 13 of the Act sets out the duty for a police authority to report publicly upon the outcome of the performance of its functions. In addition, January 2005 saw the implementation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 which gives a general right of public access to all types of recorded information held by public authorities including information pertaining to police performance.
As performance management systems develop, there is an opportunity to provide more regular and relevant information to the public and police authority. The majority of forces report performance to their police authority on a quarterly basis. The information provided is based on quarterly performance reports used by the forces themselves.
It is intended by some forces to publish their performance reports on internet web sites and circulate the reports to their police authority members on a monthly basis to ensure they are placing as much information as possible in the public domain. HMIC noted that forces also use a number of publications, ranging from local press articles to official council bulletins, to report on their performance. Community officers regularly report local performance results to a multitude of public groups.
The Chief Constable of Northern Constabulary reports formally to the joint police board on a quarterly basis. Prior to this meeting local area commanders invite their respective board members to their offices to discuss the local performance aspects of the report about to be presented. This allows local board members to consider force performance in a local context. According to the force, this has led to stronger local accountability and understanding of police performance.
A similar practice exists with the Police Service of Northern Ireland ( PSNI) as a result of the amended constitutional arrangements arising from the Patten Report.
Under legislation, a local area commander in the Police Service of Northern Ireland must produce a local policing plan after consulting with the local District Policing Partnership ( DPP). Thereafter, the plan is monitored and the local commander reports on progress to the DPP at least 6 times a year. This is over and above the central accountability of the Chief Constable who reports to the Northern Ireland Policing Board at least 10 times a year.
There have been some recent concerns regarding potential confusion over performance information which is publicly reported. In part this was due to the Scottish Executive reporting crime and detection statistics on a calendar year basis whilst the police service and the Accounts Commission reported on a fiscal year basis. This particular matter has been resolved and all parties now report on a fiscal year basis.
Perhaps the most significant factor in lingering public confusion, however, arises due to the timing of published information. The SDEA and most forces report their annual performance information individually between April and June, after it has been presented to their respective police authorities. HMIC publishes its annual report containing all Scottish forces' crime and detection figures in September. The Scottish Executive Justice Department releases its annual Scottish crime bulletin around October and, subsequently, Audit Scotland reports on the statutory performance indicators it collects on behalf of the Accounts Commission around December. While the figures used for all of these reports are now based on the same timeframe, they still differ slightly to take account of reports or detections referring to this time frame but identified and recorded in subsequent months.
ACPOS also provides an update on some of its policing priorities within its annual report, published around June. However, this cannot be said to provide a comprehensive report on the performance of the Scottish police service as a whole.
The number of reports and manner in which they are presented can potentially cause further confusion, especially without the relevant contextual information to explain any variances. HMIC considers that this is an issue which is capable of resolution by the strategic steering group recommended at Chapter 3.
It is also important to consider the performance reporting of the common police services and HMIC notes that governance arrangements in respect of the common police services as yet remain to be settled in the light of proposed legislative change. At present scrutiny and higher level accountability is undertaken by the recently formed Common Police Services Programme Board. The Director of each common police service reports on organisational performance to the board every 6 to 8 weeks.
4.5 Community Planning
The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 places a statutory obligation on local authorities to initiate, facilitate and maintain community planning, while requiring other agencies including the police to participate in the main aims of engaging with communities and working together to provide better public services.
As was recorded in 'Local Connections', 18 forces are continuing to adapt to the new arrangements, with perhaps the greatest progress being noted in local authority areas initially piloting community planning or those with existing strong community safety arrangements.
During inspection, HMIC noted that all forces demonstrated a commitment to the formation of Community Planning Partnerships and Community Plans. Furthermore, despite the difficulties of establishing cross-cutting local priorities and resultant action planning, there was also evidence of effective linkages between this process and the force business planning cycle.
HMIC, however, acknowledges that, if priority setting in a multi-agency environment remains particularly challenging, then the effective management of performance across the partnership is even more difficult. To achieve effective performance management, a number of practical difficulties will have to be overcome by practitioners from the police, housing, social work, education, and other council services. These include the absence of reliable and valid joint indicators, geographical boundaries that are not co-terminous, differences in definitions and the way in which data is collected between organisations, issues surrounding the sharing of operational data and the resources and technology required to collate relevant, timely data across the partnerships.
HMIC has noted that Community Planning Partnerships have already identified the need to develop structured performance management systems but much more work has yet to be done. This has also been recognised in the context of Best Value and Community Planning Audits, recently carried out by Audit Scotland in various local authorities. While it is not suggested that a single performance management system or set of indicators would necessarily apply to all partnerships, there will still be some priorities which are relevant to all and for which common indicators might be developed.
This was previously identified as an issue in 'Local Connections' 19 where HMIC recommended:
'that ACPOS, in consultation with the Scottish Executive, ensures the development of performance indicators is consistent with the local context of community planning'.
HMIC found that all forces are interested in exploring and expanding their joint working practices. This includes, for example, the use of joint databases and community analysts, the measuring of partnership activity using partnership audits, the application of balanced scorecard and joint public perception surveys. Also, in recognition that a significant portion of activity is difficult to measure, some forces are also monitoring progress by setting milestones for strategy implementation and utilising external evaluations. The use of liaison officers within local authorities and local health boards, and inviting partners to tasking and co-ordinating meetings, help to facilitate this process.
HMIC acknowledges that there is a great deal of positive working ongoing within forces and encourages the development of structured performance management systems to provide a greater degree of evidence and accountability in respect of community planning.
« Previous | Contents | Next »