The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Scottish Policing Performance Framework

14. The Framework was launched on 1st April 2007, with its first annual public performance report due to be published in the summer/autumn of 2008. Its purpose is to provide a coherent, core national framework for measuring and reporting police performance at force and national level, fed by a single, commonly agreed, suite of measures. Its contents have been developed in consultation with, among others, Audit Scotland, and therefore include all existing statutory performance indicators. This arrangement should prove a strong basis for managing and improving performance throughout the police service in Scotland, while the performance information it produces will help to enhance accountability.

15. Constructed around four separate performance areas, the Framework covers the breadth of policing activity. High level objectives within each area are supported by specific performance measures. These in turn, fall into one of three categories: outcomes (final results), activities (required to achieve outcomes) and inputs (resources used). A fourth category contains contextual indicators, incorporated to promote better understanding of the environment in which police forces operate. Crucially, there is scope at each stage for local measures to be included.

16. The moderate number of indicators in the first year of the Framework reflected the limitations on what could be measured at that time. A revised and more comprehensive set of measures was anticipated in year 2008/2009, with further adjustments taking place where appropriate on an annual basis thereafter.

17. The anticipated benefits of the framework are as follows:

• accurate performance data that can be used to drive continuous improvement and more effective performance management;
• improved reporting and greater accountability; and
• clearer shared understanding between the police service, stakeholders and the public on what policing activity can and cannot achieve.

18. During the inspection it was apparent that most forces had implemented the Scottish Policing Performance Framework to varying degrees. This ranged from being fully accepted by one force, whose internal and external performance measures reflected even the design of the Framework, to non-acceptance by two others.

19. Furthermore, there were similarities and differences in the ways in which forces had integrated the Framework. Four had incorporated it into their public performance reporting, each having developed, or looking to develop local indicators in conjunction with the Framework. We consider this flexible approach to be good practice. A fifth force had since adopted a different method of publishing its performance information.

20. Three forces were using the Framework as the basis of their performance reporting to police authorities/boards, with another intending to do so in the future. These reports were supplemented by information on matters of local priority and further contextual information.

21. Police authority/board convenors had already received an awareness presentation outlining the rationale behind the Framework, courtesy of the Framework project team. Further presentations to inform other members of authorities/boards were planned. We believe that there are considerable benefits, as well as those of greater transparency and accountability, to be gained from a common approach to performance reporting that uses the framework as its foundation. For example, once the consistency and accuracy of performance reports is secured, Audit Scotland may be able to discharge its statutory duty to report on performance indicators, through the Framework. The Framework could, in the future, also prove a useful source of benchmarking data for forces.

22. The SPPF is therefore of particular value to police authorities/boards, especially in relation to their duty to secure best value. This will become even more evident as forces and their authorities/boards become accustomed to and practiced in the use of the standardised self assessment process which will replace individual force inspections by HMICS from June 2008. The self assessment process uses indicators within the SPPF as evidence for every step of the self assessment process - affording senior staff and the authorities/boards to which they are accountable the opportunities to rate themselves against similar units elsewhere in the same force and eventually elsewhere in Scotland. As well as adding indicators of local interest at that level, police authorities and boards will undoubtedly wish to see the core Framework develop with data of particular, common interest to them. The opportunity exists, through the Scottish Conveners' Forum's representation on the Senior Strategic Steering Group ( SSSG), for this to be achieved.

23. Returning to the inspection we found that, in most forces, knowledge of the Framework was restricted to senior managers. Whilst this appeared to be a deliberate strategy in some cases, we believe that, as the Framework becomes increasingly embedded in police business, awareness amongst officers of all ranks will rise.

24. For the Scottish Policing Performance Framework to be a success, the public, the forces and their stakeholders must all have confidence in its reporting processes. In order to achieve this, each force must incorporate the Framework into its performance measurement arrangements; without such a shared national commitment, the value of the Framework diminishes.

25. The Senior Strategic Steering Group ( SSSG) has agreed that the SPPF will also be reported nationally and that the organisation most able to do this objectively should be HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. The first annual report on the data collected for the Framework will therefore appear in the Autumn of 2008, albeit it can only contain historical comparative data in this first iteration for those indicators where this was previously available. Current monitoring of the data being collected for the Framework indicates that, understandably in a new venture such as this, some of the data is not yet consistently recorded, and some has revealed apparent inconsistencies or anomalies in performance or contextual information not previously identified. Exposing this information to public scrutiny will be challenging for forces and therefore time spent now in gaining an understanding of the causes of these variations will be beneficial both from a performance management and public information perspective.

Key Finding: That a common approach to reporting and publishing performance information will significantly improve transparency, accountability, and ultimately confidence, in the police service in Scotland.

Recommendation 1: So as to promote greater consistency, accountability and transparency across Scotland, all forces should incorporate the Scottish Policing Performance Framework into their own public performance reports and use this as a basis for reporting to their police authority/board.

Performance Management Data

26. The development of the Framework and the associated work by ACPOS on routine reporting of performance information has raised considerable concern around how forces gather and report information. Inconsistently applied criteria and counting rules have proved particularly problematic. Added to this are technological restrictions on what information forces can easily produce. This situation is currently being quantified and documented as part of the CPMP project.

27. The CPMP will provide a solution in the future. In the meantime it is important to emphasise that in order to improve performance and the quality of service that the public receives, it is vital that all forces and agencies fully understand their current levels of performance. The new self-assessment process for forces - for which, at the time of the inspection, training was already underway and pilots soon to be carried out - will greatly assist in increasing this understanding, as it will involve members of staff from all roles, ranks and functions. However, based on the European Foundation for Quality Management ( EFQM) business excellence model, the Results sections of the self-assessment questionnaire calls for a significant level of organisational performance information over and above that required for the SPPF. This was not well developed in some forces and most have some way to go to if they are to meet the requirements.

28. Senior managers in every force and division/command area therein, clearly appreciated the need for performance management. And all had in place established methods for capturing, analysing and reporting performance information at force and divisional level. However, in some cases information was only collated and examined at monthly or quarterly intervals. This is in stark contrast to the best performing forces in England and Wales, where at all levels performance information is monitored on a daily basis.

29. Forces that examined performance information on a quarterly basis were using information that was in effect historical. Indeed the oldest information we saw being used was almost four months old. In such instances the potential benefits are limited, and what is intended to be performance management is actually only performance monitoring, albeit still better than nothing.

30. Some sergeant and inspector ranks were able to give examples where area/divisional performance information had been broken down to station, team or individual level in a facilitated and co-ordinated manner. However, at an operational level generally, a focus upon performance management was less evident. In part this was due to difficulties in obtaining and accessing such data and then converting it into meaningful information for performance management purposes. But even where information was being captured, some sergeants and inspectors remained unaware of its value. Because of this they neither sought such information out nor used what was readily available.

31. All forces (and police authorities/boards for their duty to secure best value) have a responsibility to make the best use of existing systems to extract, or where appropriate to develop methods of extracting, performance management information for all levels of management.

32. In Grampian Police, we observed an enhanced information technology system capable of doing precisely this. During fieldwork the representative of one territorial division was able to demonstrate the good use made of this technology in analysing the performance of teams and individuals and identifying areas for further scrutiny. The purpose was not to compare the achievements of teams or individuals, the division was keen to stress, but to give managers the information they needed to manage and influence performance effectively.

33. Another positive aspect was the division's noticeable focus on supplementary qualitative data to lend an explanatory context to the figures. A similar finding was apparent in Tayside Police, where managers at all levels believed that a concentration on figures in the past had allowed them to develop a strong, resilient and mature performance culture. Here too, the focus had since moved on to identifying indicators based on quality rather than quantity. Indeed as a general rule across the Service we noted that the more advanced the use of performance data as a management tool by sergeants and inspectors, the greater a focus upon quality. This is a healthy and very encouraging development.

34. Returning to the first force, the same division seemed reluctant, however, to share its performance data with its sergeants. This appeared to stem from a lack of confidence in these ranks and concern as to the manner in which they would employ the data. The engagement of teams and individual members of staff in performance management is central to achieving continuous improvement in forces. Performance data at this level can assist sergeants and inspectors by informing their decisions: providing indicators of performance and serving as a basis for benchmarking. In our view, providing such information to sergeants is essential to improving performance in policing.

35. A number of other forces also captured team and individual performance data. Nevertheless, in some instances we remained concerned about the timeliness of the information gathered, the amount of time supervisors took to locate and collate this information and the lack of supplementary contextual information.

36. During the inspection, officers of both constable and supervisory ranks expressed an interest in performance management information. Many, however, found much of it lengthy and not easily interpretable. We therefore believe that publishing force performance data in a shortened, user-friendly format, with key performance issues highlighted, would be beneficial.

37. We were also aware of the suspicion with which some viewed the collation of performance data, and its perceived association with so-called 'league table' comparisons. The Police Federation and officers of various rank highlighted the wide variety of roles performed by police officers and the difficulties in drawing comparisons across these. We recognise that activities cannot always be quantified, nor should performance management ever focus solely upon quantitative measures. However, we also recognise that, for individual performance comparison, adjustments relating to role, location and time available for operational duties can be made. The performance of teams operating in the same area is particularly ripe for direct comparison - experience from Scottish experiments and elsewhere in the world has shown this to be a fruitful area of management.

38. Members of the public may be justifiably surprised to learn that some aspects of individual and team performance is not consistently measured. Can sergeants and inspectors possibly do their jobs properly if they don't know how many quality intelligence reports are submitted by each of their constables? Can they be said to be supervising if they don't know if their teams are performing better or worse than the others in that area? Shouldn't they want to know how many of the search warrants sought by their officers resulted in positive finds, and how that compares to the average in their division or force? These are examples of indicators which are a combination of quantitative and qualitative measurements.

39. The Inspectorate accepts that considerable work is still needed, to develop these and other robust methods of assessing the quantitative and qualitative aspects of policing at individual and team level, as well as at the higher levels of structures. Some of the individual and team measures will need to be different from the SPPF for instance. Some indicators need time to be properly understood or adjusted so that they make more sense. But forces and ACPOS should not wait until everything is developed and can be implemented at the same time. Performance management is a work in progress and always will be. If results are assessed with these concerns in mind, balanced and informed management decisions can be made.

Key Finding: Performance management requires accurate, current and meaningful data. Managers need ready access to easily interpretable performance information, in order to identify performance issues and to inform decisions then taken.

Recommendation 2: So that frontline performance can best contribute to overall service improvement, all forces should develop their ability to capture, use and analyse performance data which is timely and accessible, and encourage an increased focus at team and individual levels through inspectors and sergeants.

National Intelligence Model

40. Since its adoption in 2000, the National Intelligence Model ( NIM) has been integrated into the practices and daily business of all forces. The NIM structure allows intelligence and information to be analysed, threats to be identified and high level priorities to be established, at local, force and national levels. Setting priorities is essential to the effective focusing and targeting of police resources.

41. As part of our inspection survey we asked police officers and staff: "How familiar are you with the National Intelligence Model or NIM as it is also called?" The results suggested that NIM was widely understood throughout the Service, with 80% (1,334) of police officers very or moderately familiar with it. ⁵

42. To get a picture of how widely the practical implications of NIM were understood, the survey also asked: "How familiar are you with your department, unit, division or force tasking process (e.g. who decides what tasking should be raised, how this is then allocated, how to respond and so on)?". The responses showed that 89% (1,452) of police officers and 71% (421) of police staff were very or moderately familiar with tasking processes. ⁶ These figures, and those above, supported the findings of our fieldwork and demonstrate that considerable progress has been made since implementation of NIM in spreading an understanding of its structure and processes.

43. During the inspection it was clear that briefings were provided to officers on taking up their duty. In most forces front-line officers were being tasked. However, it became apparent that some of the officers involved were not always clear as to the exact lines of communication and protocols associated with carrying out and recording the results of such tasking. Briefing processes are central to ensuring that officers understand both the task and the necessity. Some forces used electronic briefing systems to disseminate key information. However officers and supervisors, by their own admission, were often selective when choosing the material that they read when self-briefing and in what they presented to their teams. An example offered by supervisors and officers in a number of forces was that while force and local priorities are listed as part of every electronic briefing these are usually skipped over.

44. A number of officers voiced concerns at the lack of feedback they received on completed tasks. Our findings indicated too, that evaluations of the effectiveness of completed tasks were carried out on an ad-hoc basis, suggesting a direct correlation between this lack of evaluation and the lack of feedback.

45. Within each of the forces, front-line officers were aware of the control strategy and priorities set both at force level and locally. This was confirmed by responses to our survey question: "How familiar are you with your organisational and/or local control strategy and its priorities?". Here 83% (1,294) of police officers claimed to be very or moderately familiar with these. ⁷

46. Nearly eight in every ten police officers surveyed (79% or 1,239) recognised the link between the control strategy and priorities and how this influenced subsequent activities. Less consolidated though, was an appreciation of how this link should work on a day-to-day basis at operational level. ⁸ We recognise that the role of operational officer carries with it many demands and that, in some instances, much of an officer's working day can be spent attending incidents and processing associated paperwork.

47. Conversely though, there are also occasions when operational officers are not engaged in these activities and have what can be regarded as 'unallocated patrol time'. In the survey we asked operational officers: "While on operational duty, do you ever have time that is NOT taken up attending incidents or conducting enquiries?". Nearly three-quarters of the officers (73% or 797) replied that they did on occasion have unallocated time. ⁹ During our inspection, operational officers indicated that during such periods they would do one of the following:

• attempt to self-generate work;
• direct their patrol in line with their local knowledge and their perceptions of problem issues; or
• on occasions follow pre-determined policing plans.

On the basis of these fieldwork responses, we included the question "Which of the following statements best describes how you use this unallocated time?" in our survey. Tables 1 and 2 below show how responses broke down across the categories.

Table 1

The 'other' category above is of interest, and further comment is made in Annex B under the analysis for question 11.

48. In effect, 45% of officers were aligning activities with their own interests and agenda. Whilst many did so with admirable intent, as Table 2 shows, the result was a dilution of focus on identified priorities.

Table 2

49. We believe that 'unallocated patrol time' offers forces considerable scope to improve performance. This needs to be achieved by actively directing officers to perform duties in line with identified force or local priorities, using clear, auditable, tasking procedures. HMICS does not argue that anything like 100% of unallocated patrol time needs to be influenced by tasking or other means of giving attention to identified priorities, but we do believe that this ought to have a much stronger influence than it does in the picture implied by our survey. As outlined in Recommendation 4, the role of the sergeant is essential to ensuring appropriate adherence to these procedures, with accountability lying with both them and their officers.

Key Finding: The activities of front-line officers are not always directed in support of identified priorities and protocols for tasking front-line officers often lack transparency. In addition, forces should conduct more evaluations of completed tasks.

Recommendation 3: That all forces, in keeping with National Intelligence Model processes, introduce clear processes for tasking all staff: directing their performance and activities in line with identified organisational and local priorities, and increasing accountability.

Sergeants and Inspectors

50. As mentioned above, while we found tasking processes to be well established in forces and operational units, implementation was not always seen to be the main priority at operational level. The performance of front-line officers, and the standards that they achieve, ultimately determines the level and quality of service the public receives. It is therefore vital that sergeants and inspectors steer the activities of officers towards identified national and local priorities, and to the results of the tasking process, while continuing to ensure that standards are maintained.

51. For sergeants and inspectors to co-ordinate the performance of officers effectively in this manner, they must understand what is expected of their role and display the leadership qualities expected of their roles. During the inspection we often found significant differences between a sergeant's perception of what his or her role entailed and those of the divisional commander and other senior managers whose policing plan they were supposed to be implementing. A common theme identified by sergeants and inspectors was the need to try to 'get through the day', monitoring and assisting officers responding to and attending incidents; thus preoccupied, it appeared to be all too easy to forget about tasking. Indeed many sergeants felt that the majority of their time was spent in front of a computer, dealing with crime reports, process compliance and other administrative work. Others felt that shortages in resources meant that when out of the office they were treated like another response unit, a perception often reflected in the comments of the constables we spoke with.

52. The situation was frequently exacerbated by a lack of robust performance information. For example, those supervisors whose officers' duties included responding to calls were often of the opinion that their officers were dealing with calls one after the other without break. Though Fridays and Saturdays are typically very busy, overall the information and research now becoming available does not substantiate the perception of constant call-responding throughout the week. Data relating to resource deployment and activity information was being more routinely captured and analysed in order to inform the introduction of variable shift arrangements ( VSA). Regrettably, however, it did not appear to be filtered back to operational units. As outlined above, of those officers surveyed claiming to have unallocated time on occasion, only a third (34% or 263) routinely took the opportunity to pursue any tasking received at briefings.

53. It is essential that inspectors and sergeants are fully aware of and react properly to the changing needs and expectations of the organisation and its partnerships. During the inspection it was not always evident that senior managers at divisions/area commands were doing enough to engage with sergeants to convey these needs and expectations. Our case study of an English force, at Annex C, shows the positive results that can be achieved when senior managers do just this.

54. It became clear during this inspection that what training was available to sergeants and inspectors was not particularly effective in equipping them for their role as operational leaders. A small number of the sergeants with whom we spoke obviously did have the necessary skills and knowledge, and gave examples of how they mentored, coached and developed their team, for the most part while actually dealing with incidents. Inspectors at times also showed leadership and innovation in how they managed their areas or teams. However, both our findings and those of another HMICS team working on a thematic inspection of Customer Feedback, point to the need for training relating to performance and quality management to be introduced.

55. Turning again to our survey, we were interested to see how different ranks gauged the appropriateness of their personal objectives. Table 3 below contains the responses to the question: "And in your opinion, do you feel that your personal objectives are appropriate for you and your role?". It is clear that compared with all the officers surveyed, a lower proportion of constables considered the objectives set for them by their line managers to be greatly appropriate. Fewer sergeants than inspectors too, felt their objectives to be appropriate to a great extent. We can only speculate here, but these findings could be indicative of sergeants' and inspectors' poor understanding of what is required.

Table 3

56. We consider the role of sergeants and inspectors to be crucial in improving the level of service provided by Scottish forces. With this acknowledgement comes the need to ensure appropriate investment in training for officers both new to and already in these positions. We recognise that forces offer a wide range of training. In our opinion, a review of that provided to sergeants and inspectors is urgently required, to gauge its suitability, particularly in relation to leadership and corporate responsibility. Consideration should also be given to what value could be added to courses held nationally at the Scottish Police College. The Inspectorate is aware that training abstraction is always a legitimate concern of commanders and chief officers and therefore does not contend that an increase in the total training provided to sergeants and inspectors is necessarily required. But we do believe that room must be made in that overall total for this particularly important part of the supervisory officer's responsibilities.

Key Finding: The roles of sergeant and inspector are key to improving policing performance, and therefore their training ought to reflect that critical responsibility.

Recommendation 4: That all forces review and develop training provided to sergeants and inspectors to increase their ability to fulfil their organisational role in providing leadership and in achieving continuous improvement in performance and maintaining standards.

Personal Development Review ( PDR) System

57. As previously mentioned, the performance of officers directly influences the quality of service received by the public. There is therefore a need to take appropriate time to focus upon officers' performance in a structured and co-ordinated manner. Force appraisal systems/ PDR systems provide line managers with such a mechanism. As our survey revealed, 91% (1426) of officers claimed to have received an appraisal, ¹² 88% (1252) indicating that it occurred at least once a year. ¹³

58. At the time of our inspection there was little uniformity in the use of appraisals across the Service. Constables and sergeants appeared to hold these systems in poor regard, often seeing them more as an encumbrance than for the positive opportunity they represent. In our view, this kind of attitude unfortunately reflects the negative culture that appears to have developed around appraisal processes throughout Scotland.

59. However, in our survey the majority of police officers, 82% (1154), intimated that personal objectives had been set for them on most, or at least some, occasions during the appraisal process. ¹⁴ This is encouraging and is undoubtedly an improvement on practice in previous years. Unfortunately only 37% (527) felt that the objectives set were to a great extent appropriate to their role. ¹⁵ Proper use of the appraisal might then be seen as significantly inconsistent across Scotland and this was reinforced by answers to the question "During your appraisals or performance reviews, is your performance subsequently assessed against these personal objectives?". Only 44% (623) of all police officers indicated that this happened on most or all occasions. ¹⁶ That said, in Tayside Police and Grampian Police the proportions rose to 67% and 64%. Removing these forces from the calculation brings the proportion for the remaining forces down to 29%, with just over a third (34%) reporting that this happens rarely or not at all. ¹⁷

60. We were concerned to note that in response to the question "Do your appraisals or other regular performance reviews tend to be completed on time?", only 35% (484) of police officers were able to respond that this was the case on most or all occasions. Twenty-three per cent (319) indicated that this occurred rarely, if at all. ¹⁸ However, Tayside Police performed well in this area, managing to complete appraisals on most or all occasions for 70% of its police officers and only rarely or never achieving this for 7% of respondents. If this force is removed from the calculations, then the proportion of appraisals completed on time falls to 28% and that of appraisals completed rarely if at all rises to 26% of the police officers who responded. ¹⁹

61. The ongoing implementation of a standard national Personal Development Review ( PDR) system provides an opportunity to reinvigorate the review/appraisal process and use it as the beneficial performance management tool it should be. Currently the system has been implemented in Grampian Police, Fife Constabulary and in the Scottish Police Services Agency ( SPSA) and a plan is in place for another 2 forces to introduce the system this year with the remaining forces taking the system in 2009. In order for it to be a success, there must be a concerted effort to educate all staff as to the reasons for and benefits of undertaking the process. Equally there must be a determination amongst officers of all ranks to commit to it. HMICS believes that it is also important that all of its constituent elements, including the interim performance reviews, are adopted. If forces were to allow the PDR system to be implemented without instilling the corresponding cultural change which these elements are designed to assist, a significant opportunity to improve organisational performance would be missed.

62. The PDR is an objectives-based appraisal system in which the subject of the appraisal identifies his or her objectives for the forthcoming review period. Importantly, role permitting, the majority of these objectives should be linked to relevant force and local priorities. Officers are also responsible for supplying any evidence of exceptional performance around their core competencies, while the onus is upon supervisors to record evidence of exceptional or less than satisfactory performance. An interim performance review meeting should be scheduled at least once during the appraisal year, to discuss the PDR, the officer's performance and any other matters arising. At these meetings the subjects of review/appraisal themselves should first be encouraged to identify their strengths and weaknesses. The results of any such meetings should be recorded.

63. At the time of the inspection one force was not conducting any annual appraisals. This was due to the delay in implementing the national PDR system, as a result of which the force was looking to introduce temporary measures should there be any further postponement. Another had integrated the completion of PDRs/appraisals into its planning cycle. Whilst this is a significant undertaking, there is an obvious logic to completing an objective-driven PDR once the force's priorities for the coming year have been formulated. We consider this to be an example of good practice.

64. The PDR system had been piloted in one Scottish force though without some of its key elements, such as the interim reviews, we were concerned to note. Officers and supervisors in this same force showed a lack of knowledge of the system and of belief in the benefits of a focused and constructive appraisal process.

65. Traditionally, the failure of supervisors to complete appraisals within the required timescales has contributed to the overall failing of such systems since relevance deteriorates rapidly over time. In order to resolve this problem, some forces had introduced a relevant performance indicator on submission times, with positive results. We consider this too to be good practice.

Key Finding:PDRs/appraisals throughout Scotland are not being used to their full advantage in supporting organisational performance improvement. In addition. neither staff nor supervisors appear to have fully grasped the mutual benefits that an interactive, objective-driven, appraisal process can bring.

Recommendation 5: That all forces adopt all parts of the new objective- driven national PDR system, and ensure that managers and staff are made aware of the value and necessity of these processes.

Activity-based Analysis

66. During this inspection it often became apparent that few forces had a clear picture of how operational officers spent their day. It has been mentioned previously that most forces were expending a great deal of effort in looking at resource management to inform the introduction of new variable shift arrangements ( VSA). This information will obviously have a use in future performance management, by helping to target resources more precisely. But in the meantime, there is another related area in which forces are already exerting a considerable amount of effort, and that is activity analysis.

67. Previously, every three years, Scottish forces were required to conduct activity analysis to inform the former grant-aided expenditure process. This involved officers categorising the nature of their activities, throughout their working day and recording this in fifteen-minute periods. The exercises imposed considerable administrative burden on forces, who in turn made little practical use of the results.

68. Recent developments have seen more regular sampling being undertaken, with forces agreeing to adopt a common methodology and form. In practice, though, we found differences in the ways in which forces collected the data. The resulting information could not then be readily compared, and so this detracted from the value of the data.

69. Having the processes in place to gather such information clearly presents considerable opportunities for the Service and police authorities/boards. In order to improve performance it is necessary to understand 'what works', i.e. to make valid connections between cause and effect. Otherwise forces cannot know, for example, whether spending time on enforcement of different aspects of road traffic legislation is an efficient or effective way of increasing road safety, or whether time spent on preparation of reports to the Procurator Fiscal is directly related to the quality of the product and the likelihood of positive action.

70. At the time of the inspection, the focus of forces was purely on providing the data required by the Scottish Government. If this focus were to be extended to capturing internally meaningful performance management data, it would be of considerable value to policing in Scotland. For example, we learned that Central Scotland Police was gathering activity analysis data to use in assessing the impact of a new policing unit. The intention was to conduct a similar exercise in the year following its implementation and to compare the results. We look forward to seeing how this project develops.

71. We are also aware that the ACPOS Performance Management Business Area has recognised that activity analysis has much to offer performance analysis and improvement and the Inspectorate welcomes the decision to move the working group which coordinates activity analysis from the Finance Business Area to the PMBA.

72. The development of both the digital radio system common to all Scottish forces (Airwave) and the incident recording and management system ( STORMMA) will significantly increase opportunities for the automated recording of officers' activity, thus reducing the current administrative burden. However, in order to realise the full benefits of these national systems, all forces will have to adhere to national incident codes.

Key Finding: There are variations in the recording of activity analysis information throughout Scotland. Up until very recently, as far as forces were concerned, the sole reason for gathering activity analysis information was to inform the former grant-aided expenditure process.

Recommendation 6: That all forces agree a common methodology for recording activity analysis with primary focus on management and performance information.

Common Performance Management Platform Project

73. A project is currently underway to create a Common Performance Management Platform ( CPMP) for Scottish forces. The project aims to achieve the following benefits:

• to deliver an effective and efficient common performance management software platform;
• to work towards joined-up performance management between police, government, criminal justice and community planning partners;
• to improve police national force and local performance management businesses processes; and
• to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency by generating effective performance management information and knowledge-sharing.

74. The project is also expected to produce considerable efficiency savings, and has been adopted as one of the top three priority ( super-ordinate) projects by the ACPOS Business Change Board. A further significant benefit will be that each of these stakeholders (Scottish Government, police authorities/boards, Audit Scotland, and HMICS) will all have direct access to the high level products of the Platform without first going through the police forces.

75. As well as considerably strengthening the tripartite accountability arrangements, this multi-agency access should also achieve further efficiencies within forces by paving the way for the information requirements currently imposed on them by both Audit Scotland (statutory performance indicators) and HMICS (the Annual Statistical Return and thematic questionnaires) to reduce dramatically, with some aspects of this disappearing altogether.

76. The introduction of the CPMP flows directly from a recommendation of our 2005 thematic inspection Managing Improvement. Its implementation will allow this recommendation to be discharged.

77. The inspection showed forces to be at different levels of preparedness for the Platform. Some were at an advanced state of readiness, with a very clear project plan and project structure in place. Others, less well-prepared, had a great deal of work still to do. Implementing the Platform is undoubtedly a significant commitment for forces. However, the benefits that will accrue to forces, police authorities/boards and other stakeholders are substantial and it is critical that all forces have the necessary arrangements in place.

78. Finally, considerable work is underway nationally in support of the Platform, bolstered in large part by the co-operation of all forces. If this is to continue, it is essential that all forces review their internal arrangements and are content that they can meet the future requirements of this project.

Key Finding: The CPMP is a critical project for the police service in Scotland and its stakeholders. It is important that forces are able to demonstrate a considered and planned approach to its implementation.

Recommendation 7: That all forces carry out the preparatory work necessary to allow the new Common Performance Management Platform to be implemented without delay.

Overall Conclusions

79. The cumulative findings of this inspection lead us to several conclusions. Firstly, performance management within the police service in Scotland has, probably quite properly, started at the top of the organisations (forces and support services), instigated by a successful national partnership amongst the stakeholders in the Senior Strategic Steering Group. This has helped to encourage the belief in leaders and senior managers that performance improvement can be achieved through: accepting responsibility; identifying changes in procedures, processes and systems; and following that through relentlessly.

80. Our second overall conclusion, however, is that the SPPF did not flow uniformly from this promising beginning to reach all parts of upper and middle management and, crucially, police authorities/boards. This has to happen now.

81. Thirdly, this growing belief in and understanding of performance management needs now to be shared with supervisors of frontline policing - and they need to be given the time to achieve that. If supervisors are indeed spending most of their time as administrators and quality controllers then forces both individually and jointly need to question seriously who in their organisations should be doing what.

82. Improvements in organisational performance are taking place across Scotland as a result of improved management of performance through changes to procedures, processes and systems. Once this is combined with improvements in individual productivity then the Scottish public will really notice the difference.

« Previous | Contents | Next »