| Chapter 1:
Organisational and Management Framework |
| Force Structure |
| 1.1 In order
to shorten the lines of communication and to increase the
accountability of senior managers, the force has been
organised into 15 Service Units, comprising eight Area
Commands and six Support Functions. The support functions
are Crime Support, Operational Support, Finance, Human
Resources, Performance, and Administration. The Heads of
these 15 Service Units are accountable directly to the
Force Executive and each other in the policy forum but
enjoy a considerable amount of devolved autonomy in
relation to their day to day work. |
| 1.2 Three of
the Command Areas, Orkney, Shetland and the Western
Isles, have the same boundaries as their local
authorities and the remaining five fall within Highland
Council area. Following a review of Command Area
boundaries the force has recently moved Nairn from the
Inverness Command Area to join with Badenoch and
Strathspey. At the time of the Review inspection a
further possible boundary change was under consideration. |
| CID Line Management |
1.3 The
restructuring of the force into service units has led to
a change in the line management of Detective Officers.
Prior to this, three detective inspectors each had
responsibility for
- Inverness and Nairn
Command Area
- Ross, Cromarty and
Skye and Caithness
- and Sutherland
Command Areas
- the remaining five
Area Commands.
|
| 1.4
Restructuring has left a Detective Inspector at Inverness
and removed Caithness and Sutherland from the remit of
the Ross, Cromarty and Skye Detective Inspector. The
remaining Detective Inspector who had a territorial
responsibility now performs a Crime Support function with
no duties of line management or oversight for the six
Area Commands. |
| 1.5 The
philosophy behind this is to leave all eight Area
Commands self-sufficient with the CID working to the Area
Commander, who has responsibility for the day-to-day
management of crime. Headquarters based senior detectives
are only intended to be involved in response to incidents
deemed to be "abnormal". |
| 1.6 HMIC
would support the principle of autonomous territorial
commands, but due to the size of the Constabulary this
has meant that in six of the eight Areas the highest
ranking CID Officer is a Detective Sergeant. In speaking
to operational officers, HMIC was made aware of
considerable discomfort amongst some CID officers and
Area Commanders about the loss of oversight provided by a
Detective Inspector and the lack of a direct link to
Headquarters' Crime Support. The concern expressed did
not relate to the day-to-day management of crime, but to
the absence of the ability and experience which is
required to recognise the serious nature of some
incidents at an early enough stage. |
| 1.7 Whilst
fully supporting the move away from a centralised CID
command structure HMIC nevertheless feels that the force
needs to address these concerns and might want to look at
a way of providing a clearer consultative role for
Headquarters' Crime Support, where much of the force's
investigatory experience is located. |
| Advisers |
| 1.8 At the
time of the Primary inspection the Chief Constable was
supported by three Chief Superintendent Advisers covering
the remits of: 1.
Strategy Development;
2. Operations; and
3. Crime.
|
| The Primary
Inspection Report raised concerns over the role of these
advisers, not only in relation to their number but also
that they had no "substantial command or decision
taking responsibility, much of the justification for
their rank will be absent". The report recommended
that: |
| Primary
Report Recommendation 1 |
| "A job
specification which clearly sets out the roles and
responsibilities of the three Chief Superintendent
Advisers to the Chief Constable be prepared and that the
Chief Constable closely monitor this role to permit an
informed evaluation of the need for these posts." |
| Review
Inspection Findings |
| 1.9 Since
January 1998 the number of advisers has been reduced to
two by amalgamating the functions of Crime and
Operations, and following the recent retiral of one of
the Chief Superintendents, one post is now held by an
officer of superintendent rank. A general role
description has been produced by the force covering
corporate and functional responsibilities. However
although there has been considerable progress since the
Primary inspection HMIC found little relationship between
the role description and the duties actually performed. |
| 1.10 HMIC
acknowledges the initiative the force has taken in the
reduction of management costs but, in reviewing the
situation, HMIC was still not convinced that the current
role of the advisers constituted the best use of the
experience of senior police officers. When talking to
Area Commanders, there was no evidence of any inhibition
on their part in contacting the advisers, although there
were different views across the force in relation to when
and in what circumstances it was appropriate to make the
contact. HMIC feels there is still a lack of clarity
in the role of the advisers within the force. This partly
arises from the fact that they are not within the line
management structure, do not have a nucleus of personnel
directly responsible to them, and are to some extent
paper and desk bound. |
| 1.11 HMIC
considers that this issue needs to be revisited by the
force with a view to clarifying the role of the advisers.
HMIC supports the concept of a tier of command between
the Force Executive and the operational Service Unit
Managers but the current work being undertaken by the
advisers does not adequately fulfil this requirement. |
| Policy Making |
| 1.12 The
Chief Constable introduced a revised policy development
and decision-making process headed by a Policy Forum
tasked with determining strategic policy. This is chaired
by the Chief Constable and includes the Deputy Chief
Constable, the advisers, and all Service Unit Managers as
well as the Media Adviser and representatives of the
Staff Associations. The inclusion of the Staff
Associations in this process is a particularly innovative
step and further emphasises the desire of the Chief
Constable to encourage wider ownership of force policy.
The Management Services and Operational Services Groups,
chaired by the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable
respectively, have the task of determining functional
policy in relation to the running of |
| the force.
Each Service Unit has identified its own management team
which meets on a regular basis to support the Service
Unit Manager in the running of the Area Command or
department and is proving to be a useful forum for the
two way exchange of information. |
| Practitioner Groups |
| 1.13
Under-pinning much of the policy process are Practitioner
Groups which the Chief Constable sees as firstly
developing "policy proposals and priorities, and
secondly to identify and resolve practical procedural
problems" (Chief Constable's Annual Report 1997/98).
Seven such groups operate within the force covering a
variety of topics including Crime, Human Resources and
Information Technology issues. Each group is staffed by
nominated representatives from all the Service Units who
come together at Force Headquarters when the level of
business requires a meeting. This is often at intervals
of around six to eight weeks. |
| 1.14 The
Chief Constable is keen that his management approach will
create shared ownership of force policy. There was a
lot of positive evidence that the people in the
organisation felt more involved in the decision making
process and that the management was listening to and
wanting to communicate with its workforce. |
| Team Briefing |
| 1.15 The
force has identified the need to improve internal
communication. In addition to practitioner groups this
has been done by the introduction of Team Briefing, which
keeps staff informed about corporate and local issues.
The Chief Constable prepares a Core Brief every five
weeks which includes information on policy development.
This is then delivered to the members of the Policy Forum
and then cascaded throughout the force by face to face
briefing. Service Unit Managers have the opportunity to
add matters of local information and interest. Officers
and support staff in front line jobs commented favourably
upon this aspect of the system. The force is to be
commended for the introduction of team briefing and for
sustaining their impetus amongst such a widespread
workforce, who now feel better informed and more in touch
with what is happening outside the confines of their own
working environment. |
| The Process of Change |
| 1.16 In
relation to the management processes within the force, HM
Inspectors feel that there are some comments to be made,
most of which centre around the functioning of the
Practitioner Groups and the process of change as the
force moves from a centralist to a devolved and
participatory style of management. There is little doubt
that the act of bringing wide cross-sections of the force
together to discuss and consider policy is beneficial and
developmental to those involved, creating ownership and
the opportunity for front line officers to be heard at
the policy table. This vision of shared decision making
is at the heart of the Chief Constable's philosophy. While
we would not question the principles of the change
process, HMIC might wish to raise some questions
concerning the effectiveness of some of its features. |
| 1.17 During
the inspection we found officers at every level who while
welcoming the more open management style, nevertheless
advanced a view that the management process was consuming
disproportionate time and resources at the expense of
operational policing. Concerns were expressed over the
number and frequency of meetings which necessitated heavy
travelling and abstraction costs from thinly spread Area
Commands. There are also some doubts as to whether it was
the Practitioner Groups themselves which were the
catalyst for creating the emerging policies, or whether
they were intended to be the vehicle for progressing some
long-standing issues in a now more enlightened management
environment. HMIC questions whether it is necessary to
channel such a full range of issues through the
Practitioner Groups. HMIC is not convinced that the
outcomes of the Practitioner Group process fully
justifies the resource commitment. Whilst it is accepted
that some policies are beginning to emerge there remain
concerns over the length of time this is taking. Some
issues in need of urgent attention appear to have become
bogged down in the meeting cycle. HMIC, whilst
recognising that some of the views expressed by members
of the force may have been founded upon mistaken
perception, felt that there was nevertheless sufficient
consistency of opinion to identify this as an issue to be
addressed. It is therefore recommended that the force to
subject the process to critical review and detailed
costing. This should include travel, subsistence,
accommodation, officer time and absence cover. The force
would then be in a position to assess the value of the
groups in the light of a more complete knowledge of
output and costs. |
| Review Inspection |
| Recommendation 1 |
HMIC recommends that the force subjects the
Practitioner Group process to critical review and
undertakes a detailed costing which should include:
- travel
- subsistence
- accommodation
- officer time
- absence cover
|
| Devolved Authority |
| 1.18 In
speaking to Area Commanders about the increased autonomy,
HMIC received mixed messages as to what this actually
meant in practical terms. Whilst the principles of
devolved authority were broadly understood it appeared
that some Service Unit Managers would welcome a clearer
understanding of the parameters of their empowerment.
The recent Accounts Commission Inspectorate report
"Credit to the Force" provides a 43 point
checklist in relation to devolved management. Northern
Constabulary may find it helpful to examine its proposed
arrangements against the recommendations set out in the
report. In making these observations HMIC recognises that
in the context of Northern Constabulary the extent of the
devolution now envisaged represents major organisational
and cultural change and wishes the force well as it moves
along this adventurous path. |
| Rationalisation of Small Offices |
| 1.19 The
Primary Inspection Report (para 1.9) highlighted that
there was scope for some rationalisation of small police
offices. The force is engaged on a continuing review and
to date has closed offices at Daviot (Inverness Command
Area), Watten (Caithness and Sutherland Command Area) and
at Back and Garrabost (Western Isles Command Area). HMIC
was pleased to note that this followed close community
consultation taking into account future policing
requirements and, in the case of Back and Garrabost, two
Community Safety Officers have been appointed with
specific responsibilities for each village. |
| Service Level Agreements |
| 1.20
Paragraph 1.8 of the Primary Inspection Report stated
that the force proposed to introduce Service Level
Agreements (SLAs) between Area Commanders and specialist
departments. These have not yet been developed although
the force action plan sets a target date of 31 March
1999, which coincides with a planned introduction of
devolved resource management (see Chapter 3). If
delivered by this date it is probable that the force will
be the first in Scotland to implement such a measure. The
Primary Inspection Report commented that in relation to
SLAs that "success will depend upon a system which
requires little administrative support and the
establishment of clear guidelines which should ensure
that operational resilience does not suffer through
decisions taken for budgeting considerations related only
to a particular area of command, a concern that has
arisen in other forces". HMIC would reiterate this
view. |
| |
