« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
3 Inspection Process
3.1 Until April 2007, each Force underwent primary inspection every five years. The methodology for this process was as follows.
Pre-Inspection Scoping
3.2 In preparation for each inspection HMCIC undertook a scoping exercise in respect of the force involved. This involved an examination of data sources, stakeholder analysis and consultation and an environmental scan including reference to various media sources.
3.3 This initial scoping process was intended to give HMCIC an overall view as to how a Force might be performing in both general and specific terms, for example in respect to road accidents or housebreaking.
Options Appraisal
3.4 Once the initial scoping was completed HMCIC convened an options appraisal meeting involving the lead inspecting officer and the staff officers responsible for undertaking the inspection.
3.5 This meeting was constituted under the EFQM14 approach 15 to inspection. Under this model some 140 areas of potential questions were considered with the final question selection reflecting the findings of the pre-inspection scoping work. To this end, and using the previous examples, it may be that there was a greater degree of questioning in relation to a particular area such as road accidents or housebreakings.
3.6 All staff officers working within HMIC have individual portfolios of responsibility that correspond to the key areas of business identified by ACPOS16. At the Options Appraisals Meeting, staff officers adapted questions relating to their own area of responsibility in light of the evidence found during the scoping phase.
3.7 Following the Options Appraisal Meeting questions were finalised and were written in both an open and closed style.
Inspection Protocol
3.8 Each force has an appointed liaison officer for HMIC. At the start of the inspection process the staff officer leading the inspection would meet with the liaison officer. At this meeting the list of questions was supplied to the force. At this time guidance was given on the style and substance of the answer expected by HMCIC. This would vary according to the subject area.
3.9 The lead officer from HMIC would then spend time in-Force conducting interviews with a variety of personnel as well as examining practices and procedures. It is fair to say that Forces were receptive to HMCIC inspections and there is no evidence of anything other than Forces being open and transparent when undergoing inspection.
Initial Inspection Outcomes
3.10 At the conclusion of the inspection process HMIC published a report that included recommendations and suggestions. HMCIC might also identify areas for future review.
Recommendations
3.11 During an inspection HMCIC would gather evidence relating to particular areas of business and consider the performance of the force in relation to those areas. Following discussions between staff officers and HMCIC recommendations for change were constructed and thereafter included in the relevant report. Examples of recent recommendations include the following
" That the force review its processes for documenting, storing and auditing productions". 17
" HMIC recommends that the force introduce a comprehensive officer safety policy"18
"A truly diverse workforce brings benefits to the organisation in terms of the variety and breadth of experience and understanding brought to the workplace, and in building trust and confidence between the force and the communities it serves. HMIC recommends that, in developing a recruitment strategy, Grampian Police fully consider opportunities to increase the diversity of the workforce: this should apply to both police officers and support staff"19
Whilst these recommendations are supported by advice in the body of the relevant report, it is clear that the Force in question would be in a position to seek a discharge simply by demonstrating that it had reviewed its process rather than demonstrating that change and improvement was the outcome of the recommendation.
3.12 Given this assertion, it is necessary to consider the effect of any recommendation and reflect on the impact a recommendation carries.
3.13 Whilst no doubt both persuasive and influential, recommendations did not, in and of themselves, deliver or demand change. Recommendations contained within an HMCIC report are not binding on any chief officer. In effect, there is no requirement for chief officers to implement any recommendations made by HMCIC.
3.14 It is very much the case that Forces being inspected hope to discharge recommendations. There are, however, instances where that may prove problematic, as recommendations made may not be clearly within the sphere of influence of the relevant Force. For example
"That ACPOS and the Scottish Executive enter into a debate about the long-term future options for the sequence of recruiting and training"20
3.15 In this particular regard, it may be argued that the bringing together of these two bodies is outwith the immediate power of the management team at the Scottish Police College.
Suggestions
3.16 Suggestions are not as widely used a tool as recommendations and it appears it falls on individual staff officers to decide whether to include suggestions in any inspection. Examples of suggestions made in recent HMCIC reports include the following
" HMIC suggests that the College ensure that best practice in procuring visiting lecturing staff is applied consistently across all divisions"21.
" HMIC strongly supports the positive steps taken by ACPOS towards national ICT integration, and suggests that 'information push' be adopted as a key priority for the design of systems supporting operational policing"22.
Areas for Review
3.17 When an inspection identifies an area where it may be appropriate to make a recommendation for improvement, it is open to the Force to demonstrate to HMCIC that they were already aware of the issue and undertaking work to address any perceived deficiency. Where HMCIC is satisfied that remedial work is ongoing it is open to the Inspectorate to include the issue as an area for future review rather than making a specific recommendation in respect of that aspect of work.
3.18 In common with recommendations, HMCIC makes note of the areas for review within the relevant report. Examples include
" HMIC noted that some aspects of internet content were not up to date and will be interested to view progress during the next inspection"23
"The force approach to staff vetting"24
3.19 It is fair to note that HMCIC applies the same scrutiny to areas for review as it does to recommendations when carrying out follow up inspections.
Second Options Appraisal Meeting
3.20 Once a Force was aware of recommendations, suggestions and areas for review, they had the opportunity to respond to HMCIC. These responses along with any findings gained through a second period of stakeholder consultation were considered at a second Options Appraisal Meeting. Following this meeting HMCIC might undertake follow-up work as necessary before reaching final conclusions.
3.21 Once final conclusions had been reached a 'hot debrief' was carried out between HMCIC and the chief constable of the relevant force. During this conversation the issues leading to recommendations as well as the recommendations themselves were discussed.
Reporting
3.22 Following the chief constables debrief, HMCIC submitted its report to the Force for a factual accuracy check. This check was intended to ensure that all information relating to the running of the force was correct and that any recommendation predicated on specific issues were well founded in fact. The Force had no locus in challenging any recommendations at this stage.
3.23 The primary inspection report was then sent for printing and was thereafter published. It is important to note that the period between printing and publication might, for wholly understandable logistic reasons, be several months. In this respect, it is fair to say that the finished product should be viewed in the context of the time in which the inspection was undertaken rather than publication date.
Review Process
3.24 HMCIC reviewed a Force 18 months after completion of the primary review. The methodology for this review mirrored that of the primary inspection, though focused entirely on the recommendations, suggestions and areas for review identified in the primary report.
3.25 A similar review was carried out eighteen months later and was followed by the five yearly primary inspection.
Developments in Inspection Processes
3.26 Since taking over this post HMCIC Mr Tomkins has stopped current inspections and indicated, by letter, to chief officers that he intends to oversee an evolution in process that will have more emphasis on self-assessment and more sharply focused thematic inspections.
« Previous | Contents | Next »