20. Memorandum submitted by
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary
INTRODUCTION
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)
welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Home Affairs Select
Committee inquiry on the effectiveness of the police reform process
and its impact on policing in England and Wales. HMIC is uniquely
positioned to comment, both from operational and strategic levels,
on the effectiveness of the Police Reform programme, because of
its long history of inspection of police forces and its role in
providing the Home Secretary and other stakeholders with professionally
informed views on policing issues.
This submission sets out HMIC's views on the
areas relating to the police reform programme as specified in
the terms of reference from the Home Affairs Committee.
1. THE STRUCTURE
AND ROLE
OF HMIC
1.1 The principal role of HMIC is to promote
the efficiency and effectiveness of policing in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland through inspection of police organisations
and functions to ensure that:
— agreed standards are achieved and
maintained;
— good practice is spread; and
It is also a key part of HMIC's role to provide
advice and support to the tripartite partners (Home Secretary,
chief officers and police authorities).
1.2 Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary
(HMCIC) is the principal police advisor to the Home Secretary
and fulfils a pivotal role in advising Ministers and Home Office
officials on aspects of policing, on both operational and strategic
matters. He also supports the Home Secretary in the selection
of senior appointments through his chairing of both the Police
Leadership Development Board and the Senior Appointments Panel.
1.3 Currently, HMCIC is Sir Keith Povey
who has been in post for three years, having previously held the
post of Her Majesty's Inspector, based at Cambridge, for four
years. Prior to this he was Chief Constable of Leicestershire
Constabulary for a period of four years; he has in total some
42 years policing experience.
1.4 There are four Regional HM Inspectors
of Constabulary (HMIs), located in Woking, Cambridge, Wakefield
and Bromsgrove and each supported by a small team of staff officers,
who play a key role in the inspection process. (Most of the staff
officers are serving Superintendents and Chief Inspectors, seconded
or loaned to HMIC by police forces.) Their primary function is
to inspect police forces and to report their findings publicly.
HMIs also have an important advisory function and seek to influence
the development of policing by disseminating good practice, providing
advice, or if necessary performing the role of "trouble-shooter"
for police forces and police authorities.
1.5 HMIs are appointed by the Crown on the
recommendation of the Secretary of State and, until recently,
selection was made exclusively from the ranks of the most senior
officers serving in provincial forces and the Metropolitan Police.
This remains the case in respect of the four regional HMIs but,
in October 1993, and in accordance with the Citizen's Charter
principle that Inspectorates should include a "lay element",
the remaining two HMIs were appointed from non-police backgrounds.
These HMIs have specific national portfolios, one of whom covers
performance issues and methodology while the other specialises
in human resources and training issues.
1.6 The HMIC work programme is extensive
and increasing demands reflect those placed on the police service
generally. Some of this work is described within this report;
however, the most visible aspect and perhaps the area in which
HMIC is most recognised is its inspection programme, the guidance
and advice which flows from that and the production of inspection
reports. Focused force inspections, thematic inspections, Basic
Command Unit inspections, Best Value review inspections all form
part of the programme to drive improved performance within the
Police Service. The whole inspection programme is designed to
provide support where it is most needed and is informed by an
annual comparative Baseline Assessment of all forces.
2. SUMMARY OF
HMIC'S CONTRIBUTION
TO POLICE
REFORM
2.1 HMIC is one of the key organisations
driving improvements within policing and over the years has fully
supported the Government's efforts to modernise the police service.
HMIC is fully engaged at all levels within the Home Office and
with ACPO on police reform and performance workstreams, with HMIs
or staff officers contributing to shaping policy and developments.
2.2 Through a combination of the professional
expertise which exists within the organisation and ongoing environmental
scanning, HMIC seeks to identify areas where a national review
of particular disciplines may reveal scope for improvement. One
such area was that of the impact of increasing visibility and
accessibility to the police service on improving public reassurance.
2.3 During 2001, HMIC undertook a thematic
inspection, which resulted in a report entitled "Open All
Hours". This highlighted a requirement for
"a change in police culture and . . . efforts
of police forces and their partners need underpinning by a national
framework of funding, performance measurement and, where appropriate,
legislation".
The report also called for national standards
in areas such as call handling, patrol, and the introduction of
neighbourhood wardens. The recommendations, which at the time
were considered visionary and aspirational, are now—through
the Police Reform Act 2002—becoming embedded into the everyday
fabric of policing.
2.4 The legislative thrust of the Police
Reform Act 2002 has been the driver of a significant programme
of change within the police service. The pace of this change has
been remarkable and, while some forces have yet to be persuaded
of the direct benefits of some reform strands—for example,
special priority post payments—positive achievements are
clearly evident.
2.5 During 2003, HMIC conducted an assessment
of the implementation of the many strands of the Police Reform
Act 2002 and the police reform programme. It was encouraging that
forces had embraced reform as a major strategic change programme,
with particular successes in areas of police and community support
officer recruitment.
2.6 Other areas, such as citizenship, the
level of preparedness for the introduction of the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and beating bureaucracy were
found to be very much "work in progress". However, during
the past year, and as mentioned later, we have seen significant
developments in all of these areas.
2.7 Through its innovative Baseline Assessment
process, HMIC continues to inspect forces and report on progress
against the various strands of Police Reform. As is discussed
later in this paper, the service's performance in the arena of
call management and customer relationship management is identified
as an area of under-performance and will be the subject of an
HMIC thematic inspection later in the year.
3. STRATEGIC
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
STANDARDS
National Accountability
3.1 The Police Reform Act 2002 introduced
new provisions which give the Secretary of State powers to issue
codes of practice to chief officers and police authorities, scope
to direct particular inspection activity and a requirement for
increased accountability.
3.2 The extension of powers attracted considerable
debate and some concern, particularly around the balance of control.
Police authorities and chief officers viewed the changes as empowering
the Secretary of State at their expense. However, these additional
powers—which to date have not been exercised in full—have
undoubtedly sharpened the focus on performance and helped to improve
service delivery.
3.3 The widened power of the Secretary of
State to require specific inspections was strongly supported by
HMIC as it complemented HMIC's increased use of risk-based assessment,
targeting specific areas of under-performance and/or high risk.
3.4 HMIC also supported the measures within
the Police Reform Act 2002 to strengthen accountability. Inspections
have often highlighted weaknesses in this area, notably:
— a lack of robustness by police authorities
in holding chief constables to account for performance, and in
tailoring services to meet local needs; and
— failure to cascade accountability
mechanisms from senior ranks through to front-line supervisors
and constables.
3.5 The Act enables HMCIC to recommend specific
intervention by the Secretary of State if forces are not improving
their poor performance, or are failing to respond to HMIC recommendations.
HMIC is recognised as the "intervention gatekeeper",
placing performance concerns in context and interpreting and professionalising
the raw metrics which arise from a purely statistical analysis
of performance. It has long been argued that this role can only
be satisfied by individuals whose professional capability derives
from experiencing the challenges of the most senior positions
within policing.
Tripartite Structure
3.6 The tripartite approach to delivering
policing in England and Wales is central to maintaining the balance
between national political influences and local accountability,
thereby allowing chief constables to deliver impartial and effective
policing services.
3.7 HMIC is independent of both the police
service and the Home Office but in effect is a bridge between
them, and is thus well placed to provide all parties with objective,
contextualised assessments of performance and policing issues.
3.8 Police authorities, working with chief
officers, have a strategic role in the governance of forces and
are positioned not only to support the delivery of policing services
but also to hold chief officers to account for performance. HMIC
recognises the often complex role of police authority members
but has noted variability in the effectiveness with which these
roles are discharged. Similar variability is evident in the response
to recommendations of HMIs and in the processes used for chief
officer selection.
3.9 The relationship between a chief officer
team and the police authority differs between force areas. Where
tensions have existed, HMIs have often played a critical role
in advising both parties and at times mediating and fostering
improved relationships. The very nature of the tensions and disagreements
calls on the significant expertise and professional capability
of HMIs to facilitate resolution. The four regional HMIs, all
former Chief Constables, have the confidence of all stakeholders
in discharging their functions.
3.10 There is currently no single body with
a remit to inspect the effectiveness of police authorities themselves,
nor to assess how well they work with chief officers. This is
an obvious gap in the regulatory coverage that could prove increasingly
problematic if the powers of the police authorities are strengthened.
3.11 Using its current powers under the
best value legislation (Local Government Act 1999), HMIC is undertaking
inspections of police authorities' self-assessments. In the view
of HMCIC, the proposals to enhance the role of police authorities
in areas such as resource deployment should be accompanied by
an inspection regime, with HMIC the appropriate body to conduct
such inspections.
National Policing Plan
3.12 HMIC fully supported the introduction
of the National Policing Plan, seeing it as an effective vehicle
for identifying and communicating Government priorities, and providing
strategic direction and focus to the 43 police forces and police
authorities. HMIC advises that national priorities should be few
in number, to prevent them being devalued, but sufficiently specific
to maintain focus and drive measurable improvements.
3.13 The National Policing Plan sets minimum
standards against which policing should be delivered and, in the
view of HMIC, should be linked to the Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO) and National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS)
National Strategic Assessments, to ensure it addresses the identified
areas of risk.
The National Centre for Policing Excellence, the
National Policing Improvement Agency and National Standards
3.14 HMIC strongly supported the introduction
of a National Centre for Policing Excellence (NCPE) and its role
in developing doctrine and codes of practice to inform and support
policing. The service will benefit significantly from national
standards and NCPE has the genuine potential to provide them,
working in concert with the key stakeholders to secure "buy
in".
3.15 It is important to recognise that,
prior to the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 and the
work of NCPE, there were few national standards against which
HMIC could inspect. The Inspectorate relied upon a combination
of agreed ACPO national guidance (which is not binding on chief
officers) and the professional credibility of HMIs to secure acceptance
of their advice, and the transparency of published inspection
findings to encourage changes in policy or practice. Once national
standards and codes are in place they will provide benchmarks
against which HMIC can target inspection activity, within an accountability
process that will add significant weight to HMIC recommendations
for change.
3.16 The NCPE has made a good start in identifying
some key areas for national codes of practice, such as the National
Intelligence Model and police use of firearms and less lethal
weaponry. However, resource and capacity issues mean that it will
be some considerable time before there is an integrated suite
of professional standards for the service. This situation gives
cause for concern and HMIC is of the view that, if the positive
steps achieved through the introduction of the NCPE are not to
be lost, appropriate levels of political support and funding need
to be provided.
3.17 HMIC believes it is timely to review
the position and role of the NCPE alongside the proposals for
the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). The initial proposals
for the NPIA highlight the risk of significant overlaps with the
NCPE and the Police Standards Unit (PSU). While in principle supporting
its introduction, HMCIC would caution against the introduction
of an additional body unless and until there is real clarity of
purpose.
3.18 HMIC is of the view that the NCPE,
Centrex and PSU—in their respective roles of developing
national standards, training and consultancy—would sit comfortably
under the umbrella of a National Policing Improvement Agency.
HMIC as an independent body—informed by and informing the
work of the NPIA—would be better positioned to inspect and
examine effectiveness.
Learning and good practice from inspections
would then be fed back into the NPIA, creating the desired virtuous
circle of continuous improvement.
Review of Policing Structure
3.19 An important question posed by the
Government consultation paper Building Safer Communities Together
was whether the current structure of policing is appropriate for
present and future policing needs. HMIC is fully aware of the
sensitivities surrounding this potentially controversial subject,
and has provided ministers with two written submissions. These
highlight some of the key issues and considerations that will
need to be addressed before final decisions can be made.
3.20 As matters currently stand, the Home
Secretary has the power to amalgamate forces but only if it is
in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. By statute and
by reputation HMIC is uniquely placed to provide a professional
judgement on these criteria and, in recognition of such, has recently
been commissioned by the Home Secretary to provide a detailed
professional assessment of whether the present 43 force structure
is the right one to meet the challenges of the future.
3.21 If England and Wales was a "greenfield"
site for policing then few doubt that it would be structured according
to a more logical design. But this is not the case and HMIC does
not underestimate the enormity of the task in hand. At the heart
of the debate is the need to reconcile the tensions between delivering
a locally based service with the need to provide an effective
response to major crime and events and to combat organised criminality
in its various forms. Structural change is almost always accompanied
by distraction of effort and disruption—clearly, it should
only be contemplated if it can be shown to deliver a step change
in police performance. HMIC will report its findings to the Home
Secretary by 31st January 2005.
Role of the Police Standards Unit
3.22 HMIC and the PSU have distinct roles
in the context of overall policing but work hard to complement
one another in driving performance improvement. The PSU is primarily
concerned with the identification of underlying causes of performance
variation and provision of support to improve performance.
3.23 HMIC has resources "on the ground"
to assess force and BCU performance but has very limited capacity
to offer post-inspection support or advice. The particular value
of the Police Standards Unit has been its ability to bring resources
and targeted support to forces/BCUs identified through inspection
or monitoring as under-performing in specific areas, notably the
reduction and investigation of volume crime.
3.24 HMIC commends the PSU for its role
in developing iQuanta, the on-line police performance management
web-site; this is now a essential tool for forces in monitoring
their own performance as well as an invaluable aid for Home Office
oversight. PSU has also played a pivotal role in the creation
of the Policing Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF), although
this is a genuinely tripartite initiative. PPAF and the availability
of real-time comparative performance data through iQuanta enables
forces to access and monitor performance management information
and compare performance with similar forces and BCUs. When viewed
alongside the HMIC qualitative assessment of forces, PPAF will
allow an evidence-based contextual assessment of performance to
be made. This provides the basis for HMIC's statutory role of
recommending specific intervention by the Secretary of State where
it believes that a force, or part of a force, is approaching inefficiency
or ineffectiveness.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission
3.25 Under the Police Reform Act 2002 both
HMIC and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) have
a statutory inspection role in respect of the handling of police
complaints in England and Wales.
3.26 HMIC is currently working with the
IPCC to implement inspection protocols which take cognisance of
the different but complementary roles. The effectiveness of forces'
professional standards departments is a core element of the HMIC
Baseline Assessment.
3.27 HMIC applauded the concept of the IPCC
and welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the development
process. While early signs are positive, there is still much work
to do before processes are fully embedded and there is confidence
in the service provided.
Local Accountability and Targets
3.28 HMIC supports the inclusion of accountability
as a key element of the Government's consultation paper Building
Safer Communities Together (2004) and the drive to define a model
of accountability with stronger local direction.
3.29 As policing and the environment in
which policing services are delivered become more complex and
multi-faceted it becomes more difficult for local communities
to hold the police to account for performance. The introduction
of more relevant measures within the PPAF to reflect local issues
are thus seen by HMIC as positive developments.
3.30 HMIC recognises the difficulties in
reconciling centrally determined priorities and local target-setting,
but believes that Government should continue to promote—through
the National Police Plan—a clear direction and consistent
delivery of standards across the country.
3.31 HMIC welcomes the increased flexibility
within the new Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets, which allows
chief officers and police authorities to deploy resources in response
to particular localised issues.
3.32 HMIC supports the concept of neighbourhood
or local panels, having seen a small number of such panels work
effectively, provided they avoid additional bureaucracy and do
not erode the operational autonomy of chief officers.
The focus should not be on creating additional
levels of accountability but rather on clearing a path through
the current myriad of bodies such as police authorities, local
strategic partnerships (LSPs), Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
(CDRPs) and Local Criminal Justice Boards, all of which operate
within virtually the same geographical area.
3.33 The increased focus of local accountability
raises the question of who would be responsible for setting local
targets among the various players. For example, how would the
work of local policing panels sit alongside the current role of
the Government Offices for the Regions, which already have a remit
to "provide a more direct and effective means of performance
management and monitoring of local delivery agents", and
manage significant spending programmes.
3.34 Policing issues affecting communities
relate primarily to crime reduction and community safety matters.
These areas are not the sole responsibility of the police service
and it is recognised that a multi-agency approach is essential.
Although there are many excellent examples of partnership working,
there are equally many cases where partnerships are not making
a full contribution (and a few are positively dysfunctional).
HMIC argues firmly that to enhance local delivery through partnership,
it is vital a framework is developed which holds non-police partners
robustly to account for their performance.
3.35 HMIC is currently contributing to the
work of the Home Office Partnership Performance and Support Unit
in developing CDRP performance measurements that mirror PPAF and
police performance monitoring. This work could move partnership
work forward but will not solve all CDRP-related problems. For
example, there remain difficulties around data-sharing, the lack
of co-terminosity between the different partners' geographical
boundaries and the complexity of unitary, county and district
council processes.
3.36 As identified during the HMIC thematic
inspection on crime reduction (Calling Time on Crime, July 2000),
co-terminosity improves co-ordination of effort, decision-making
and shared responsibility and in the view of HMIC is a critical
factor in the development of local accountability.
3.37 The work ongoing in respect of a National
Community Safety Strategy would, in the view of HMIC, strengthen
the mechanisms for holding CDRPs more accountable for performance.
3.38 The concept of "community advocates"
was floated in the Building Safer Communities Together consultation
paper. HMIC is committed to increased community engagement but
cautions that this role potentially duplicates work currently
being carried out by bodies such as Independent Advisory Groups
and Community Panels.
4. PERFORMANCE
Baseline Assessment
4.1 The HMIC Baseline Assessment approach
is a response to the complex and dynamic policing environment,
and in particular the major developments flowing from the police
reform programme. The process was termed "Baseline Assessment"
because it seeks to monitor change—both improvement and
deterioration—within each force against a baseline of performance
set in June 2004.
4.2 Baseline Assessment takes as its starting
point the objective, quantitative data from PPAF, to which is
added standards-based professional judgement. This enables a more
rounded and contextual assessment of activities such as volume
crime reduction, which are amenable to measurement, but also brings
within an assessment process key areas such as leadership and
community cohesion which do not fit within a quantitative measurement
framework. The main elements of the reform programme—such
as the extended police family and professionalising investigation—are
incorporated within the Baseline Assessment, allowing progress
to be tracked force by force. An innovation is the use of a four-band
grading system (Excellent, Good, Fair and Poor) to make these
judgements both comparable and easily understood by citizens and
users. The principle of risk-based proportionality is retained,
with activities graded as Excellent or Good left largely untouched
and focusing inspection activity on Fair and Poor areas.
4.3 The structure of Baseline Assessment
corresponds with the PPAF domains, with additional areas covering
Leadership, Strategic Management and Performance Management.
4.4 A key feature of this new approach is
that, instead of periodic snapshots of performance, HMIC will
have a dynamic tracking mechanism that fully reflects the core
roles of performance and reform. The assessment of force's overall
strengths and weaknesses will be high level, comprehensive and
annual, deriving in large part from evidence and self-assessment
supplied by forces. Good performance will be learnt from rather
than inspected, with the result that engagement between HMIC and
forces will be less intensive, more evenly spread throughout year,
and with a greater reliance placed on self-assessment and the
views of other regulators and partners.
4.5 For the future, HMIC is working towards
an accreditation process at force and BCU level so that those
organisations with robust and proven internal inspection and review
structure are trusted to undertake self-assessment, validated
by HMIC. Forces which earn this degree of autonomy will experience
a reduction in regulation and inspection.
The extent to which a "performance culture"
is being embedded into the Police Service
4.6 There is little doubt that a performance
culture is developing within the police service, although the
pace of change and degree to which such a culture is embedded
within everyday operation is variable. The implementation of the
National Intelligence Model, increased availability of up-to-date
and comparative data and greater accountability through the HMIC
inspection programme have all contributed towards improved performance
and delivery of service.
4.7 The National Intelligence Model is a
key driver in policing activity and the police service is working
to improve the management systems around the areas of planning,
performance review, people and financial management. While progress
is clearly evident, HMCIC considers that some forces have been
constrained by a legacy of obsolescent computer systems which
are not fully integrated. The provision of relevant and timely
information to managers is crucial but remains problematic for
a number of forces.
4.8 HMIC is concerned that embedding a performance
culture is not given the same priority by some partner organisations.
The lack of shared performance data and weak accountability mechanisms
can create tensions when working in a multi-agency environment.
It is only when organisations share common goals and mutually
supportive performance regimes that the potential synergy in problem-solving
and long term crime reduction can be achieved.
5. WORKFORCE
MODERNISATION AND
STAFF TRAINING
5.1 The Police Reform programme has provided
a platform for workforce modernisation and the continued development
of a more professional police service. Considerable progress has
undoubtedly been made but there is no room for complacency. As
identified by HMIC's recently published thematic inspection of
workforce modernisation, a significant programme of change must
be undertaken to meet the demands of policing in the 21st century.
5.2 HMIC is of the view that, with certain
notable exceptions, there is scope within forces for a greater
level of strategic Human Resource (HR) management and associated
workforce planning. This would ensure improved capacity to deliver
specified outcomes and an ability to be more creative and—where
appropriate—take risks. There is still more work required
to link effective use of HR with operational activity and performance.
Forces are, however, responding to national guidance on force
HR strategies and costed plans, and police authorities are developing
the ability to provide expert scrutiny and governance in this
key area.
5.3 The Treasury and Cabinet Office responses
to the Home Office SR2004 bid helpfully posed questions about
HR capacity to support Police Reform. At its heart is the notion
of getting the right people in the right roles, with the appropriate
skills, terms, conditions and support. HMIC believes that a fundamental
plank in the in delivering the reform agenda is a properly co-ordinated
and strategically driven approach to HR in the police service.
5.4 A significant amount of work has been
focused in the last three years on the development of national
recruitment standards and the processes associated with an effective
and efficient method of attracting and selecting new police officers.
At its heart is an Assessment Centre with mandatory exposure to
tests for respect and diversity. The HMIC inspection report, due
to be published in September 2004, welcomes what has been achieved
but notes that issues of consistency and robustness remain to
be addressed. There is now a case for expanding this approach
to cover PCSOs, police staff and Special Constables. Forces have
some challenging targets to improve recruitment from minority
communities but will need to steer a clear line between positive
action and discrimination.
5.5 The picture nationally in respect of
retention for police officers is good, due in part to the retention
factor in the pension scheme for police officers (with its dual
accrual element in years 21 to 30 of service). That said, there
are localised problems relating mainly to the high cost of living
in the South East of England, and some skill shortages. For police
staff, the situation is affected by multiple entry, the absence
of a national career structure and the lack of national approaches/standards.
The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which extends to police
forces from 1 October 2004, will provide some new challenges in
this area.
5.6 The area of workforce planning has,
in the view of HMIC, made slow progress. In recent years the ability
to plan for the long term has been constrained by well-intentioned
but isolated extremes. The Crime Fighting Fund, for example, helped
substantially to increase police officer numbers but prevented
forces from focusing on the totality of the quantity and nature
of staff required. Two relevant HMIC inspection reports—Training
Matters (2002) and Modernising the Workforce (2004)—have
argued for a more comprehensive approach to funding workforce
growth and improvement.
5.7 Since its reform in 2001 the Police
Advisory Board for England and Wales (PABEW) has maintained an
effective watch on terms and conditions for police officers and
advises the Home Secretary on changes and new requirements. Police
staff terms and conditions are generally set locally, although
the Police Staff Council (PSC) is gradually developing a national
approach. Not all forces are signed up to the PSC, but in the
cause of reform there must be a move to align the terms and conditions
for those officers and staff.
5.8 For police officers, the Police Negotiating
Board (PNB) 2002 settlement introduced a range of initiatives
which have not yet taken full effect or been properly evaluated.
These include:
— Competency Related Threshold Payments
(CRTPs)—these have started to link pay to performance and
competence but there is work to be done to equip supervisors better
to link or reward the performance; to change cultures and attitudes;
and to make the connection with attendance management a positive
one.
— Special Priority Payments (SPPs)
introduced the notion of using pay as a lever both to attract
people to unpopular or difficult work and to reward exceptional
commitment. The concept has proved unpopular, however, and HMIC
shares the view of others that they are divisive and are wrongly
attributed to posts as opposed to people. There is clear disparity
between forces on how the process is implemented, with little
evidence at this stage to prove that the initial objectives have
been achieved. HMIC supports the idea that chief constables should
be able to reward top performers, but this requires a transparent
process that is intrinsically linked to personal development reviews
(PDRs) and wider performance measures.
— In principle, reducing staff overtime
is a commendable aim, both to improve the work/life balance and
to encourage better long-term planning. But HMIC is firmly of
the view that introducing a target for forces to reduce overtime
represents micro-management of police authorities and chief constables,
and undermines their authority to manage and deploy resources
as they deem necessary. In addition, the target set is not only
a challenging one but introduced against a backdrop of increased
operational demand (eg, counter-terrorism, tackling anti-social
behaviour and increasing visible presence). Overtime is the most
cost-effective and at times the only lever to resource short-notice,
additional commitments. The management and monitoring of the scheme
(which is time-consuming and bureaucratic) is currently under
review, at HMIC's request.
— The proposals for the new pensions
scheme offer a constructive and widely supported way forward,
providing greater flexibility in exit points without undue penalty.
Schemes for police staff are broadly similar, with forces contracting-out
to local government schemes.
— The Occupational Health strategy
is well advanced, and forces have received specific funding to
pump prime provision. HMIC suggests that additional guidance is
required and there needs to be proper evaluation of effect. Sickness
absence is being reduced through more effective attendance management
and linked to improved support. Fitness testing is under review
by PABEW, as is drug and substance abuse and testing. HMIC considers
that the combination of effective standards (resulting from proper
consultation) allied to sympathetic and timely care for those
in real need, is the way forward.
— Performance and Development Reviews
(PDRs) have been introduced for all staff within the police service.
Progress in this area is commendable, although there is still
work to do in respect of quality. HMIC sees the target of 100%
coverage in 2004-05, backed by a quantitative PPAF measure, as
achievable. The introduction of a PDR regime for chief officers
and the PDR-linked performance bonuses for superintending ranks
have helped to embed PDR as a key HR process, and is a contributor
to individual and force performance management and improvement.
Leadership
5.9 The development of future leaders is
one of the key functions of HMIC. Sir Keith Povey, as HMCIC, chairs
the Police Leadership Development Board (PLDB) and the Senior
Appointment Panel (SAP), the latter being introduced to increase
transparency in the senior officer appointment process. The PLDB
is a key mechanism in driving the Government agenda to develop
the leadership capability within the police service, and ensuring
that the required leadership skills are reflected in the training
and development for all ranks.
5.10 HMIC welcomed the Home Office consultation
exercise on "getting the best leaders to take on the most
demanding challenges", and believes that implementing the
outcomes of this review will be of major importance to policing.
One aspect of this process has been the introduction of the chief
officer PDR process; this is a new step and one which is central
to the Government's drive to enhance the leadership skills of
the most senior police officers. Although welcomed by HMIC, this
appraisal function represents a significant demand upon Regional
HMIs; HMIC will report on this process in 2005.
5.11 The review of Senior Officer Training
and Development in 2001-02 led to the decision to replace the
Strategic Command Course with two modular Senior Leadership Development
Programmes (SLDP and SLDP2), related to individual need within
an organisational set of requirements. HMIC is a core contributor
to both SLDP programmes on the issues of performance and reform.
5.12 The Review of Leadership Development
Below Senior Officer Level and for police staff has resulted in
the creation of a Core Leadership Development Programme (CLDP),
with a significant component delivered locally and/or by e-learning.
The National Police Leadership Centre, part of CENTREX, manages
and hosts much of the delivery of these programmes, linking also
to leadership work across the public and private sectors. There
is now a good foundation and the potential to provide necessary
support to leaders in contributing to police reform.
Staff Training
5.13 HMIC reported to the Home Affairs Committee
on Police Training and Recruitment in 1999 and has since undertaken
a significant programme of work in respect of training and personnel
inspection activity. It also provides support and advice to policy
development within forces and the Home Office. Key features of
this work includes:
— A thematic Inspection—Training
Matters (2002)—on probationer training, which resulted
in a fundamental review of the programme and the (imminent) launch
of the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme.
— A formal inspection of Central Police
Training Development Authority (CTPDA)/CENTREX (2003-04). The
report found the organisation to be "inconsistently effective"
and made recommendations accordingly. CENTREX responded with an
action plan within the prescribed six-month period, and the Home
Office and ACPO are now producing their responses.
— HMIC is also engaged on a major programme
of inspection of the Best Value Reviews of Training conducted
by all 43 police authorities. This is part of a four-year approach
to making training in police forces more cost-effective and better
linked to performance.
— The HMIC Baseline Assessment process
incorporates two elements on human resources (HR) and training
and development, linked to the PPAF domains. This will be updated
for the 2005 process to strengthen the focus on HR strategy, costed
plans and PDRs.
5.14 HMIC will shortly produce reports on
the use of the new National Recruitment Standards, introduced
in early 2003, which includes a mandatory element on respect for
diversity and the Trainer Development Programme, intended to equip
trainers throughout the service with the knowledge and skills
for their roles.
5.15 The Police Skills and Standards Organisation
(PSSO) was formed in 2001 and has successfully introduced the
Integrated Competency Framework into the service. Its functions
have been smoothly incorporated into the new Sectors Skills Council
for the CJS. A key element of its emerging work for policing is
the launch of professional registers to provide formal and visible
accreditation for police officer and staff competence. HMIC inspected
the PSSO during 2003 and commended its significant achievements
over a very short time. The PSSO is arguably the most effective
of the 73 National Training Organisations, and provides a good
foundation for the successor structure, Skills for Justice.
5.16 The National Centre for Applied Learning
Technologies (NCALT) is the most visible outcome in the area of
ICT and e-learning work. This initiative is supported through
a Managed Learning Environment (MLE) across all 43 forces, which
allows individuals to access learning programmes from workplace
or home. HMIC argues that the MLE must now become the national
standard for all police personnel; however, there may need to
be a degree of prescription to ensure that forces use it, together
with changed working practices. There is also a requirement to
ensure committed resources, a robust governance structure and
some attitudinal shift.
Race and Diversity
5.17 The increased focus on race and diversity
issues in the police service has been reflected within the structure
and work of HMIC. In recent years, HMIC has appointed specialist
staff and undertaken and reported on a number of thematic inspections
including Winning the Race (1997); Winning the Race—Revisited
(1997); Winning the Race—Embracing Diversity (2000);
and in 2003, Diversity Matters, which examined race and
diversity training.
5.18 HMIC played a key role in the provision
of support and guidance to forces following the community disorder
in Bradford 2001 and in the aftermath of the "Secret Policeman"
television documentary (revealing racist attitudes and behaviour
within a police force area and at the Police National Training
Centre in Cheshire.
5.19 HMIC have responded to the interim
report by the Commission for Racial Equality on its formal investigation
into Race Equality Schemes, and are supporting forces progress
recommendations from the investigation. HMCIC will provide an
oral submission to the forthcoming Inquiry.
Use of Community Support Officers
5.20 One of the most visible outcomes of
the police reform programme is the introduction of Community Support
Officers (CSOs)—referred to in some areas as Police Community
Support Officers. (PCSOs). CSOs were introduced by Section 38
of the Police Reform Act, creating a role for police staff with
limited powers who can undertake a variety of uniformed patrolling
tasks.
5.21 The role of CSOs and their effectiveness
has yet to be fully evaluated. However, the concept was recently
examined as part of HMIC's thematic inspection of workforce modernisation
(Modernising the Police Service, July 2004). Key relevant
findings from the report include:
— At the time of this inspection there
were 3,538 CSOs, with forces on course to meet the national target
of 4,000. Some 39 forces have either deployed CSOs or are in the
process of doing so.
— The introduction of CSOs overall
has been highly successful, particularly in terms of enhancing
reassurance, where they fulfil a high visibility role that has
been difficult for police officers to achieve in recent years.
CSOs are also playing a vital role in working with partners in
the wider policing family, and their ability to break down barriers
within community groups has been recognised.
— There is widespread recognition that
the rapid take-up of CSOs has been largely driven by the additional
resources provided by the Home Office. However, the uncertainty
over long-term funding has led many forces to employ CSOs on fixed-term
contracts. Some CSOs have expressed disquiet over this approach,
and it is recognised that it may limit the recruitment pool. HMIC
welcomes the continued commitment to CSO funding within the 2004
Spending Review.
— Issues on forces' ability to manage
growth in numbers featured prominently—emerging or growing
concerns about the capacity of the current police infrastructure
to absorb additional staff. These concerns include the adequacy
of existing police buildings to cope with additional staffing;
provision of appropriate levels of IT; other resources and equipment;
and the managerial demands associated with supervising, managing
and briefing additional staff within existing resources.
— The lack of central guidance has
led to forces adopting their own approach to issues such as the
granting of powers, uniform and equipment, management and risk
assessments. While variation to meet local need is inevitable,
HMIC found little consistent thinking in relation to these issues.
5.22 The value of the introduction of CSOs
and the positive impact they make to front-line policing was identified
during the inspection and, importantly, has been similarly highlighted
to HMCIC by front -line staff during force visits. The full picture
will not become clear however until independent evaluation schemes
have been completed. The situation nonetheless is very promising.
6. SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Information Management
6.1 Information management across forces
in England and Wales forms a patchwork of differing capability—some
have integrated modern systems while others rely upon ageing systems
which offer inadequate support to operational staff. The main
reason for the variances has been the decision of some forces
to act individually and procure systems which meet their individual
needs, rather than wait for the delivery of the much delayed national
systems (NSPIS).
6.2 The reasons for national delays are
complex and much debated; what is important is that the service
learns lessons from the failings of the national strategy, and
ensures that future solutions not only deliver real operational
benefit but are delivered within realistic timescales.
6.3 HMCIC has concerns that even new endeavours,
such as "Programme Impact" (which is intended to deliver
a national intelligence solution) continues to follow the bespoke
solution route rather than seek off-the-shelf options.
Communications and Call Handling
AIRWAVE
6.4 It is pleasing to note that the police
service is nearing completion of the Airwave delivery programme.
Airwave offers the police a modern digital communications infrastructure,
which will help to deliver information to the officer at the point
of decision. As a radio system it provides a commonality of communications
that will remove one of the historical inhibitors to any restructuring
of forces.
6.5 There remains some debate as to the
capability of Airwave to match its promised ability to deliver
data, and many forces are now exploring and exploiting these alternatives
to deliver mobile policing solutions.
Call Management
6.6 The police service, in common with most
private and public sector organisations, recognises its requirement
to manage calls from the public—its customers—promptly
and professionally. Baseline Assessments confirmed that call handling
is currently a weakness in policing, with relatively few forces
boasting a high calibre facility. HMIC is about to undertake an
in-depth thematic inspection of the end-to-end call handling process,
examining the causal factors of good and poor performance while
concentrating on the customers' perceptions of the quality of
the service delivered.
Police National Computer.
6.7 The Police National Computer (PNC) is
the only truly national computer application used by the police
service across the UK. Introduced in 1976, the PNC has grown into
a vital policing tool containing many information sources vital
to operational policing.
6.8 In the past 10 years there have been
four reports (one from the Home Office and three by HMIC) which
have criticised forces' ability to enter data into the system
in a timely manner and to a high quality. During 2001-02, HMIC
conducted a year-long, focused inspection of PNC performance,
which promulgated significant improvements in all forces. Without
sustained focus from HMIC auditors, however, compliance tends
to drop post-inspection. HMIC successfully pressed for the introduction
of a Code of Practice, under the auspices of the Police Reform
Act 2002; this will, for the first time, instil some real teeth
to the compliance issues. HMIC remains cautiously optimistic that
the changes will finally lead to a consistent standard of PNC
input across the service.
Forensic Management
6.9 In 2000, HMIC published its inspection
report, Under the Microscope, which examined the use of
scientific and technical support to reduce volume crime. The inspection
noted with satisfaction many examples of effective and innovative
use of technical support. However, it also identified significant
gaps in the integration of forensic science into mainstream policing,
posed searching questions about knowledge of policy and the adequacy
of data management and monitoring systems.
6.10 A follow-up inspection (Under the
Microscope Refocused) was undertaken in 2002 to assess how
well forces had responded to the recommendations in the original
report. This review identified continued growth in the use of
DNA and forensic technology within forces, but despite the large
sums of money being invested, progress was slow. Further development
of police processes and management is required to maximise the
potential of forensics and new technology.
6.11 HMIC therefore welcomes the work being
undertaken by the Home Office, PSU and ACPO to expedite the collation
and dissemination of forensic performance data—this will
increase transparency and enable HMIC to make a sound qualitative
assessment of forces' performance in this critical area.
6.12 The developments within forensic science
in the police service have been a crucial factor in improving
overall policing performance. Understandably, investigation of
the most serious crimes—which form a tiny proportion of
crime as a whole—derive the greatest benefits from forensic
science but increased use of DNA technology, and the overall progress
forces have made in respect of evidence-based management, have
driven improvements across the whole spectrum.
7. BUREAUCRACY
7.1 The O'Dowd Report in September 2002
contained 52 recommendations on reducing bureaucracy within the
police service. The Home Office Policing Bureaucracy Taskforce
(PBTF), on which HMIC is represented, was established to take
forward the action plan arising from that report. To date, 27
of the recommendations have been delivered.
7.2 During 2003-04 HMIC, conducted a short
review of progress with the O'Dowd recommendations. The findings
indicated that, whilst there were still many outstanding issues,
the PBTF had raised the profile of bureaucracy reduction and created,
in most forces, a commitment to reduce many of the bureaucratic
barriers to efficient policing. Almost without exception, forces
report the most significant gains as being those related to new
technology—notably VIPER (video identification parades),
Automatic Number Plate Recognition, Airwave and the national Statutory
Performance Indicators (SPIS) to replace bureaucratic manual processes.
Major gains were also identified in relation to workforce modernisation,
and in particular the work of CSOs. The community linked issues
of Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) extension, introduction of Community
Safety Accreditation Schemes (CSAS) and Anti-Social Behaviour
Orders also fared highly.
7.3 Interestingly, specific areas of work
that scored favourably in some forces were identified as causing
blockages to reducing bureaucracy by others—eg, the introduction
of CSASs, where there was an identified lack of interest and commitment
from partners to progress implementation.
7.4 An issue not identified during the review
but a constant note of complaint during HMCIC force visits relates
to the bureaucratic burden created by the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act, 2000 (RIPA). HMIC welcomes the work recently initiated
by the Home Office to address these concerns, and also the implementation
of the Policing Bureaucracy Gateway, which will challenge and
influence the introduction of new national policy.
7.5 HMIC concludes that a great deal of
work has been undertaken by forces to implement the recommendations
of the O'Dowd report, but there is no room for complacency. Bureaucracy
reduction still needs to be integrated into core police business
rather than treated as a discrete project.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 In conclusion, HMIC regards the police
service as firmly wedded to reform, and recognises the substantial
progress made in meeting the ambitions of the Government's reform
programme. There remains, however, a need to support the service
throughout this continually evolving and dynamic process; HMIC
sees itself as uniquely positioned to undertake this role.
8.2 With its wealth of policing experience
and its professional credibility within senior police ranks, HMIC
has the support of the stakeholder community. There is a real
danger that a proposal to amalgamate the organisation into an
overarching criminal justice inspectorate would dilute its effectiveness
and endanger the entire reform agenda.
31 August 2004
| 
