Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links
Publications

What We Do Police HMIC

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The Fingerprint Bureau: Primary Inspection 2000

2. Structure and Leadership

2.1 Status of SCRO as an Organisation

2.1.1 The Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) is a common police service, that is, one funded and managed in a co-operative way by the eight Scottish forces, the eight police authorities and the Scottish Executive. It is a central, computerised repository of criminal records, fingerprints and other information which is accessible on-line by all Scottish police forces.

2.1.2 SCRO pioneered the use of Automatic Fingerprint Recognition (AFR) in the UK and the automation of the fingerprinting of individuals detained at police stations (vide Livescan terminals). SCRO provides a twenty-four hour, seven days a week operational service to the Scottish police forces and the wider criminal justice system. Its offices are currently located within Strathclyde Police Headquarters at 173 Pitt Street, Glasgow, for which a rent is paid.

2.1.3 The primary functions of SCRO are to provide and monitor, for the eight Scottish police forces, a fingerprint verification and identification facility and a computerised criminal record system. For the reasons set out in the Introduction to this report this inspection focused solely on the fingerprint aspects of its service provision. The other functions of the organisation are due to be inspected by HMIC in December 2000.

2.2 Structure

2.2.1 Figure 1 below shows the current structure of the organisation

2.2.2 The Committee Structure of SCRO is described in detail in paragraph 2.7 below. The current structure of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau is set out in Appendix "A."

2.2.3 The structures pertaining to the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau provide only a partial representation of how fingerprint services are delivered in Scotland. While SCRO plays a key role at national level and in the provision of local fingerprint bureaux services to Strathclyde Police and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, the other six police forces in Scotland employ their own fingerprint experts. There are 72 fingerprint experts currently employed within the Scottish police service.

2.2.4 The numbers within forces is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: No. of Fingerprint Experts by Location

2.2.5 The distribution of fingerprint experts between SCRO and forces was examined in the course of the work undertaken in the late 1990's for the Hamilton Report and by the independent consultants who reported in 1999. Both studies concluded that the efficiency of fingerprint services would be improved by rationalisation of the current structure. The Hamilton Report recommended centralisation of the service with a devolved model of satellite bureaux continuing to provide a local service to forces. The subsequent report by independent consultants supported implementation of this recommendation. (See Chapter 1, paragraph 1.6.2).

2.2.6 HMIC concurs with the view that the efficiency of the service would be improved by rationalisation of the current structure. Centralisation, in the form of a national fingerprint service for Scotland, responsible for the provision of all fingerprint services required by the police and the Crown, is considered by HMIC to be an important component of the solution to many of the problems existing under the present arrangements.

2.2.7 This is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.15 below where specific recommendations are made.

2.3 Role of HMIC

2.3.1 HMIC had a seat at the former SCRO Controlling Committee in an advisory capacity and this role has continued with the SCRO Executive Committee. The Assistant Inspector (a Deputy Chief Constable on secondment to HMIC) normally undertakes attendance from HMIC.

2.3.2 The present Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMCIC) does not support the continuation of the present arrangements involving HMIC. The principal advisory role undertaken by HMCIC is as an adviser to Scottish Ministers and while attendance in that capacity may be appropriate, it must, to preserve the independence of HMIC, exclude any appearance of direct management responsibility. However this issue can be addressed when the wider debate about the provision of Common Police Services is dealt with as part of the Government's review of policing in Scotland.

2.4 Role of the Scottish Executive

2.4.1 Because of the status of SCRO as a common police service, the Scottish Executive has a key role in relation to the funding and management of the organisation and for that reason has always been represented within the SCRO committee structure. Previously this involved representation on the former SCRO Controlling Committee and Fingerprint Standing Committee. Under the present structure, a senior official from the Justice Department represents the Scottish Executive on the SCRO Executive Committee. The same representative chairs the SCRO Management Committee.

2.4.2 Despite this key management role, SCRO is not required to provide management information to the Scottish Executive on a regular basis. Scottish Executive officials do not routinely visit SCRO beyond the meetings schedule and to date have mostly adopted a "hands off" approach to the organisation's management. The perception of the Scottish Executive as the "paymaster" as opposed to a key player in the management structure is detrimental to what could be a strong and supportive management influence. As with the comment in respect of the HMIC role at paragraph 2.3.2 above, this issue needs to be addressed in the future debate about the re-shaping of Common Police Services as a whole. Given the present arrangements the Scottish Executive has an important role to play in securing the progress and direction recommended in this inspection report.

2.5 Relationship with Strathclyde Police

2.5.1 While Strathclyde Police has no more management responsibility for SCRO than any other force, the relationship between SCRO and Strathclyde Police has traditionally been a close one. This is due to a number of reasons including the physical location of SCRO and the fact that the support staff working for SCRO are employees of Strathclyde Joint Police Board. However, the role of the Board is a facilitative one in respect of employment and personnel issues only. The Board has no day to day operational control.

2.5.2 The other main factor, which leads to close working relations with the force, is that a high proportion of the fingerprint work undertaken by the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau involves Strathclyde Police cases. De facto, SCRO acts as the fingerprint bureau for Strathclyde Police (as it does for Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary).

2.5.3 HMIC is concerned about the perceptions attached to SCRO fingerprint bureau. Given their current and legitimate role for Strathclyde Police and the responsibility of the Joint Police Board for support staff SCRO does not have the outward appearance of an independent organisation. This position, in the view of HMIC, undermines the national and strategic importance of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau as a key provider of fingerprint services to all of the Scottish Police Forces and the wider criminal justice system in Scotland. Clearly this is not intended or desirable and this view is shared by the Chief Constables of Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway for whom SCRO act as their fingerprint bureau.

2.5.4 In future structural arrangements SCRO should be, and be seen to be, the independent and national organisation, which it is. A number of recommendations in this report will assist in the projection of the organisations' independent corporate identity.

2.5.5 While the appointments have been made on merit, it is a fact that in recent years the senior police management team in SCRO has been seconded predominantly from Strathclyde Police. Currently, there is police staff on secondment or attachment from other forces and that approach is to be encouraged into the future under any new structures.

2.5.6 HMIC noted that the first "Main Duty" listed in the job description for the chief superintendent in charge of SCRO is described as follows. "To advise and make regular reports to the Assistant Chief Constable (Crime), Strathclyde Police, who is responsible through the Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police, for ensuring that the policy of the Controlling Committee, is carried out."

2.5.7 In practice the reason for the ACC (Crime) receiving regular reports from the head of SCRO derives from the volume of work which SCRO is undertaking on the force's behalf. Also, it is clearly the position that the Chief Constable of Strathclyde has responsibility for SCRO only in as far as being one of the members of the Executive Committee. In essence the job description does not reflect the legal and actual position and requires emendation. HMIC suggests this be done.

2.6 Relationship with other Forces

2.6.1 SCRO Fingerprint Bureau has enjoyed good working relations with all the Scottish forces. Despite the perceptions arising from the close association with Strathclyde Police, staff involved in scenes of crime and fingerprint work across Scotland mostly spoke in positive terms about their working relations with the SCRO fingerprint experts and other staff in the fingerprint bureau.

2.6.2 Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary is the only force other than Strathclyde not to have its own fingerprint bureau and thus relies wholly on the SCRO bureau for all fingerprint services. As in Strathclyde, staff in Dumfries and Galloway were of the opinion that they received good service from SCRO, and importantly, a timeous response to urgent cases.

2.6.3 Operating procedures with the other six forces have been affected by the change to working practices resulting from the introduction of Livescan terminals and AFR. The use of Livescan and the handling of AFR searches by staff within force bureaux has significantly reduced both the work done by SCRO for these forces and the amount of contact between staff at SCRO and the force bureaux. Telephone contact with staff in forces has also been significantly reduced. In the past, fingerprint experts at SCRO would notify staff in forces by telephone when a fingerprint identification had been made. This practice has now stopped in an effort to reduce the time spent by experts on non-core duties. Such notifications are now made by post unless in urgent or very serious cases.

2.6.4 A service level agreement (reproduced in Appendix "B") sets out the agreed level of service provided by SCRO to forces and formalises pre-existing arrangements. SCRO has been unable to meet that agreement for some time now for the following reasons:

• the increased workload which resulted from AFR and the new facility to search significantly more marks and cases;
• the loss of fingerprint experts to other bureaux which led to a 26% loss at expert level within the SCRO bureau;
• the introduction of a 24 hour Livescan service with no additional resources to meet the demands which this placed on staff;
• the resulting backlogs in scene of crime cases, which in December 1998 extended to 7500 cases.

2.6.5 On the introduction of the 24 hour Livescan service, SCRO undertook to confirm identity or otherwise, within 2 hours of tenprints being received at SCRO. HMIC noted that in 1999/2000, this target was achieved in 95.5% of cases.

2.6.6 The Eight Force Standard Working Group aimed to address the need for new agreements with forces with service levels based on realistic needs and expectations. HMIC suggests that new service level agreements between SCRO and the eight Scottish forces are progressed by the APRT.

2.6.7 Although HMIC received positive comments from across the Scottish forces in respect of relations with SCRO at an operational level, HMIC found that some tensions had arisen following the McKie case. This may be due in part to the understandable limitations of the SCRO response to the issues raised following the acquittal in this case. Due to the close links between McKie and another case, which is now subject to appeal, and the well publicised threat of litigation, senior management at SCRO have felt constrained in their response to the variety of issues raised. Although there was an immediate response by SCRO to forces and other stakeholders in the aftermath of the McKie case, this took place at the most senior level.

2.6.8 It is particularly unfortunate that the present situation led to the cessation of work on the eight-force standard, which had been progressing. The significance of the eight-force standard is discussed in detail in the Introduction to this report (paragraph 1.7).

2.6.9 Notwithstanding the tensions referred to, this inspection and the work by APRT will help address the issues. HMIC considers that implementation of the recommendations contained in this report will assist in rebuilding the positive and important relationships between 'the future SCRO' and forces.

2.6.10 All parties should now be encouraged to move forward together to achieve the much needed progress on the wider development of the provision of fingerprint evidence, particularly the introduction of the non-numeric standard.

2.7 Committee Structure

2.7.1 The committee structure existing prior to change in 1999 consisted of the SCRO Controlling Committee and the SCRO Fingerprint Standing Committee. The former comprised the chief constables of the eight Scottish forces and representatives from SCRO and the Scottish Executive. By convention it was chaired by the chief constable holding office as President of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPOS). It follows that the chair rotated each year with the Presidency. Chief officers, or deputies at a senior level, from the eight Scottish forces attended the Fingerprint Standing Committee as did representatives from SCRO and the Scottish Executive. The Standing Committee was chaired by a chief constable.

2.7.2 The review by the independent management consultants conducted in 1998/99 reported that both the head of SCRO and the service provided by SCRO, were inhibited by the reporting and decision making process existing at that time. That report recommended that the process should be streamlined.

2.7.3 Two new committees were recommended:

2.7.4 These recommendations were agreed and implemented. Although the original proposal regarding the Management Committee anticipated representation of forces at ACPOS level, this has been relaxed to allow representation at senior level. HMIC notes that to date, forces have been represented on the Management Committee by their heads of Crime Management Services. This has been found to be a positive move in keeping these officers informed and up-to-date with current developments but HMIC questions the role of this committee in actual "management" terms. Some members also questioned their management function.

2.7.5 HMIC is of the view that the new SCRO Executive and Management Committee offers only limited improvement on the former committees in that it remains an unwieldy and top-heavy structure, which inhibits speed of response and fails to focus accountability. HMIC recommends that the management oversight structure be reformed as part of re-positioning SCRO within a new Common Police Services arrangement. Consideration might be given to including some form of representation from the Procurator Fiscal Service in any reformed SCRO structure.

2.8 Internal Structure of SCRO Fingerprint Bureau

2.8.1 A diagram of the bureau's structure is set out in Appendix "A." The bureau is headed by a chief inspector (not a fingerprint expert) seconded from a police force. The chief inspector reports to the deputy director/director of SCRO.

2.8.2 He is supported by a deputy head of bureau who is a senior fingerprint expert and the AFR/Livescan manager, a seconded police inspector. Reporting to the deputy head of bureau are the Training and Quality Assurance Officers (both senior fingerprint experts). These posts are discussed in paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 below. A team of principal fingerprint officers and sergeants oversee six teams of experts. The team structure is described in paragraph 2.13 below. Other teams include the AFR/Livescan management team, which comprises both expert and non-expert staff. They provide a 24-hour service cover in relation to AFR, Livescan and the tenprint section, which is staffed by fingerprint clerks, an administration assistant and on a temporary basis, clerical assistants.

2.9 Senior Management Posts

2.9.1 The most senior management posts within SCRO are currently held by police officers. The Director and Deputy Director are both seconded from Strathclyde Police holding the ranks of chief superintendent and superintendent respectively. The head of the Fingerprint Bureau is a chief inspector on a three-year secondment to SCRO from Lothian and Borders Police and the Livescan manager is a seconded inspector from Tayside Police.

2.9.2 Senior fingerprint staff were asked their views about this police officer management structure. While the comments offered were generally positive, many experts remarked on the restriction that is placed upon their own career structure by retaining police officers in these posts.

2.9.3 HMIC was informed that supervisors within the SCRO fingerprint bureau have been utilised in basic identification work for the last two to three years because of the service demands of Livescan and the backlog of cases. There is recognition at SCRO of the need for supervisors to be enabled to undertake supervisory duties and to become part of the audit and quality assurance process.

2.10 Deputy Head of Fingerprint Bureau

2.10.1 The post of deputy head of the fingerprint bureau was civilianised in 1996 having previously been held by a police inspector. The post was advertised. A senior expert within the SCRO fingerprint bureau was appointed to the post. The main functions of this post include deputising for the head of bureau (chief inspector), assisting in the day to day running of the bureau, responsibility for the development and co-ordination of quality assurance and training initiatives, research and development of new systems and/or amendments to current procedures.

2.10.2 The expert in post described his role as overseeing the day to day work of the bureau, balancing resources, managing caseloads and prioritising work. This includes supervision, personnel matters, quality issues and administration. He is also the ACPOS representative on national and international fingerprint committees relating to standards, evidence and development issues and represents SCRO and Scotland on other national groups. He is currently participating on the fingerprint working group of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners. (see paragraph 8.19 for more about the Registration Council).

2.11 Quality Assurance Officer

2.11.1 The post of quality assurance officer/training officer was created in 1996. The position was filled internally by a principal fingerprint expert who remains in post. HMIC noted that the quality assurance aspect of the role was quickly taken over by the training aspect. To address this, another expert was appointed to undertake a full-time training role. Whilst this has assisted in meeting training demands, it did not result in the first expert being released to focus on quality assurance duties. At the time of the inspection about 90% of this expert's time was devoted to training. In order to address the need for greater commitment to quality assurance matters, a full-time training post has been advertised.

2.12 Training Officer

2.12.1 As described in paragraph 2.11 above, the quality assurance officer has undertaken the dual role of quality assurance/training officer since the introduction of the post in 1996. Unable to meet all the training demands placed on it, that post has since been augmented by an acting principal fingerprint officer fulfilling the role of a second trainer. One of the final recommendations of the consultants' report in June 1999 was the need for a full time quality assurance officer and a full time training officer. SCRO is aware of that need and budget approval was given in January 2000 for inclusion in SCRO's 2000/2001 budget. A vacancy for a full time training officer had been advertised, but had not been filled at the time of the inspection. HMIC strongly supports and recommends the separation of these two crucial roles. However there is concern that by filling the training vacancy this will simply formalise the post currently filled by the existing member of staff without augmenting the training capacity. The quality assurance officer has remained heavily committed to training during the period that the second expert has been in post. This indicates that more than one training officer (or some other way of delivering training) is required in order to release the quality assurance officer for the primary role. HMIC suggests that the number of training staff required be addressed by the APRT, taking account of the structures and functionality put in place.

2.13 Team Structure

2.13.1 The internal structure of the SCRO fingerprint bureau is set out in Appendix "A" which shows the bureau currently divided into a number of teams, six of which comprise experts working on crime scene mark comparisons. These include a special case team, a fraud team and four other teams dealing with volume crime. Volume crime is the term used to describe those cases, which are neither fraud nor fall into the serious crime/special interest category, which is dealt with by the special case team. At the time of the inspection the bureau had received an exceptional number of serious crime cases. Serious crime is always given priority and in order to prevent a backlog, experts from the other teams were being used to clear the special case workload. Not unexpectedly this created a backlog of volume crime cases just after a period where some progress had been achieved in reducing an existing backlog.

2.13.2 Since 1999, cases dealt with by the special case team have been extended to include serious assaults, robberies and racial incidents in addition to murder, rape and other serious crimes. In 1998/99 the team dealt with 213 cases including 39 murders, 58 attempted murders and 15 rapes. Out of a total of 3115 marks examined by this team, 301 marks were positively identified.

2.13.3 The team leader of the special case team supervises cases involving the fingerprinting of unidentified bodies. (see paragraph 5.7)

2.13.4 HMIC was informed that teams had formerly operated on a geographical or territorial basis with members of each team being responsible for the crimes within certain police divisions or areas. Under this structure, experts were able to develop knowledge of the local criminals operating in that area and became familiar with their respective modus operandi. HMIC found that many experts saw benefits in working under this system and felt more involved by having 'ownership' of the crimes in their own particular areas.

2.13.5 The decision to change from a territorial to a crime type approach was taken to make a better use of resources given the need to have as many experts as possible working on clearing the backlog of cases from previous years. Subsequently, resources were further re-focussed to work on current cases to prevent a backlog occurring there. The workload dealt with by these teams is described further in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.9.

2.14 Leadership within Force Fingerprint Bureaux

2.14.1 There is a fingerprint section or bureau, employing fingerprint experts, within the identification branch of six of the eight Scottish police forces. The number and location of fingerprint experts in Scotland is shown in Figure 2 of this report. Most of the experts in forces perform a dual role as scenes of crime officers and this is discussed in detail in Chapter 6, paragraph 6.12.

2.14.2 Within the forces, the identification branch operates within the structure of crime management services under the overall command of a detective chief superintendent or detective superintendent.

2.14.3 With regard to leadership within these branches, HMIC found a mix of police officers and support staff in charge. All those in charge were found to work closely with fingerprint staff and had good knowledge of the workloads and working procedures within their departments.

2.15 The National Solution

2.15.1 The centralisation of a national fingerprint service for Scotland was discussed in paragraphs 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 above in the context of both the Hamilton Report and consultants' reports that rationalisation of the current structure is required. HMIC agrees that a change is necessary.

2.15.2 There are a number of options to consider. These might include a form of the status quo. This would involve SCRO continuing to perform the role of fingerprint bureau for Strathclyde Police and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary but with greater separation and transparency from its national responsibilities on behalf of the wider criminal justice system. The other six forces would continue to employ their own fingerprint experts in their respective bureaux.

2.15.3 A second option and, arguably, the most radical would be to remove the fingerprint expert role from the police service and form a national fingerprint bureau to serve the criminal justice service as a whole. This could sit alone with agency status or as part of a national forensic science service, independent of the police service but serving the police, Crown and Courts as customers. There would be a possibility of providing a service to defence lawyers.

2.15.4 A third option is to retain SCRO as it is, including the fingerprint bureau, but as part of a restructured common police service. Existing services such as SCRO and the Scottish Police College plus collaborative arrangements (such as the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the Scottish Crime Squad) could be brought under the directorship of one governing authority. A director appointed for such a grouping might be a chief constable or equivalent. Such an arrangement would in effect create a "ninth police force." Within such a structure, consideration could be given to another option that would dismantle the current structure of the Scottish Criminal Record Office and create a new National Identification Service for Scotland. The new service would comprise three main branches, i.e. a national fingerprint service, criminal history (records) and Part V (vetting).

2.15.5 While recognising that other models or options can be proposed HMIC considers that the centralisation model (with devolved elements) is the way forward, at least in the immediate and short term. It is appreciated that this would still involve fairly radical restructuring of the current arrangements. It is also acknowledged that the redeployment of fingerprint experts and other staff within a central organisation impacts directly the fingerprint staff currently employed by police forces. HMIC is aware of the unsettling effect, which such discussions would cause among staff, primarily those currently employed by forces who with their colleagues at SCRO are, and will continue to be, the backbone of the service. Centralisation however has been the subject of discussion since these earlier reports and the proposal is not a new one. Consideration of the circumstances of individual members of staff should be a key feature in the planning of any such change.

2.15.6 One of the reasons why a transition could not happen too quickly is the fact that most of the fingerprint experts in Scottish forces currently perform a dual role as scenes of crime officers and to remove them from their current posts would denude forces of their crime scene examiners. Only 11 of the 43 fingerprint experts employed in Scottish forces do not have other roles (6 Tayside, 1 Lothian & Borders, 2 Grampian, 2 Fife). The other 32 experts all fulfil other duties within their respective force's identification branch either as crime scene managers, scenes of crime officers, photographers or other specialist posts. There is a need to debate the appropriateness of the dual role and HMIC suggests this issue should be part of the APRT review. As part of that review the issue of whether police officers into the future, should be trained as fingerprint experts or the whole cadre of experts be comprised wholly from support staff should be addressed.

2.15.7 Comments received from forces in respect of the Hamilton Report's recommendation regarding centralisation indicated some opposition to such changes. Most of this was based on the perceived benefits of local experts providing a local service.

2.15.8 While the potential benefits of centralisation include economies of scale, this should not be to the detriment of the local service. Careful consideration would be required to identify and then ensure a centralised structure delivered the benefits that are currently said to accrue from having fingerprint experts located within different force areas.

2.15.9 The formation of the eight-force standard working group was a positive response at the time to rejection of the centralisation recommendation. The group was addressing important areas such as a standard approach to training and processes across Scotland, which HMIC fully supports. Under the present arrangements however, six Scottish forces are to a degree subsidising the fingerprint service provided to Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway Police while also employing their own fingerprint experts. Training and procedures are not standard across Scotland. Although the eight force standard working group was making progress towards a procedure manual, which could be applied throughout Scotland, such guidance is not yet in place. Trainee fingerprint officers receive different levels of experience depending on where they are located. Different processes apply in different bureaux. It is undesirable for such differences to exist within the same criminal justice system.

2.15.10 As mentioned in paragraph 2.15.6 above, the majority of fingerprint experts in forces have a dual role in that they are scenes of crime officers as well as fingerprint officers, while experts at SCRO do not routinely attend scenes of crime. Experience of giving expert evidence in court varies across the country. Salary grading also varies between bureaux. The predominance of serious crime within the Strathclyde Police area means that SCRO experts are dealing with murder cases and the difficulties associated with such cases on a far more regular basis than force experts. The totality of this position affords an opportunity for an imbalance in experience and expertise to develop between bureaux. The location of AFR terminals across Scotland also results in inefficiencies for several police forces.

2.15.11 HMIC acknowledges the progress made by the eight force standard working group but believes that these issues might be more satisfactorily addressed were all fingerprint experts brought under the auspices of a single body. Balancing all the issues HMIC recommends that a centralised model for a national fingerprint service be considered. The Hamilton Report and supporting studies are key sources of guidance and the options set out above are useful starting points.

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.

For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.