4 Review Findings and Leasons to be Learned
4.1 Inspections are not unique to policing and a number of partner agencies are subject to periodic reviews by bodies that have a role similar to that of HMCIC. The manner of inspection styles does, however, differ in some key respects from the approach taken by HMCIC.
Self-Inspection
4.2 Self-reflective professionalism is a phrase used by other professions. It reflects the view that individual bodies are responsible for the constant and consistent review of their own practices and procedures. When inspected it is expected that the organisation involved will highlight areas of best practice as well as areas for improvement and submit those to the inspecting body.
4.3 Areas upon which inspections are focused are highlighted via self-examination questionnaires. These are often wide ranging and questions are submitted to a variety of staff, managers and stakeholders. Organisations are also asked to grade their own performance in key areas identified by the relevant inspectors. It is the experience of other inspectorates that this process of self-grading is usually done accurately and that individual bodies are aware of their failings as well as good practices. By developing an ethos of self-reflective professionalism it has been found that organisations undertake a fairly rigorous regime of self-inspection.
4.4 In common with work done by HMCIC, other inspecting bodies spend time within the agency they are inspecting. This then leads to recommendations and the highlighting of good practice via a report.
Formation of Recommendations
4.5 Partner agencies take an 'outcome focused' view of recommendations. To this end, inspectors construct recommendations in such a way that once complied with a clear outcome will be achieved which should benefit the body in question, and by extension, the service they provide. An example of such a recommendation being ' social policy should set out to reduce the number of children…who experience three or more moves…in a 12 month period'25.
4.6 It is submitted that this form of recommendation is clear, concise and its outcome measurable. Discharging recommendations constructed in this form becomes a clear-cut task as it is possible to assess the impact of the recommendation on the service provided.
4.7 Once inspection reports are completed, the body concerned has several months to develop an action plan to address issues raised. These plans are owned by the inspected body and any action taken to meet the recommendations made by the inspectorate are wholly and solely the responsibility of the inspected body. The relevant inspector receives a copy of the plan as a matter of process in order that it can be evidenced that the recommendation has been received and understood by the relevant body.
4.8 Whilst the inspector may appoint a link officer to assist the recipient in working towards discharge of the recommendation the responsibility for the development of any plan and follow up work remains with the body concerned. This ensures that the inspector remains a separate part of the improvement process and whilst supporting, avoids micro managing the relevant agency through any improvement process.
4.9 It is the view of the review team that many of the issues associated with the recommendations made in respect of SCRO and the subsequent findings of the Justice 1 Committee, are a result of HMCIC recommendations not being clear and outcome focused. As the recommendations cited above demonstrate, it is possible for a recipient body to evidence compliance with a recommendation without actually needing to evidence improvement.
4.10 It is the review team's belief that it would assist both the recipient body and HMCIC if recommendations were formulated in an outcome-focused manner. Chief officers would have a clear idea of what was expected of them, and HMCIC would be able to evidence improvement or otherwise in follow-up inspections. Outcome-focused recommendations would assist in the promotion of positive, measurable and focused change.
Lesson 1. Recommendations made by HMCIC in inspection reports are often too ill defined. Future inspection procedures should result in SMART (Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-framed) Recommendations that have an outcome focus.
4.11 It is essential that the body being inspected can implement all recommendations made by HMCIC in respect of their business. To this end, the review team feel it is appropriate for HMCIC to confine any recommendations within the scope of the inspected body's area of influence.
Lesson 2. Some HMCIC Recommendations within a report on an inspected body are directed at other agencies and subsequently the inspected body has little or no control over their implementation. HMCIC should ensure that all Recommendations are entirely deliverable by the inspected body.
Suggestions
4.12 Suggestions sit below recommendations in the hierarchy of HMCIC inspection content.
4.13 Given the status of recommendations, discussed above, it can only be concluded that suggestions carry considerably less weight and influence with chief officers. To this end, the review team believe that should an issue be worthy of comment by HMCIC it should be included either as a recommendation or area for review.
Lesson 3. The relevance of HMCIC Suggestions, given that they carry less weight and are often even more ill defined than Recommendations, is seriously questioned. HMCIC should remove the category of Suggestions from the tool kit available to HMIC and staff officers when undertaking inspections of any type.
Areas for Review
4.14 Whilst there is no doubt merit in highlighting areas where development work is being undertaken and noting that that work will be reviewed at subsequent inspection, the review team feel that this area should also be outcome focused. Again, there is benefit to all if the work being reviewed can be clearly measured.
Lesson 4. Areas for Review, like Recommendations, are often too ill defined. Future inspection procedures should result in SMART Areas for Review that have an outcome focus.
Scottish Executive
4.15 HMCIC reports to the Scottish Executive via the Justice Minister (since 17 May 2007, to the Scottish Government via the Cabinet Secretary for Justice).
4.16 Reports are directed to the relevant chief constable and copied to the Police Board or Police Authority.
4.17 Given the tripartite approach, the Scottish Executive, whilst having sight of HMCIC reports rarely provided further comment or offered direction to Police Boards/Authorities as to how recommendations might be progressed.
4.18 Within the tripartite system there is, however, scope for the Scottish Government to re-emphasise the responsibility Police Boards/Authorities have in both supporting the chief officer and ensuring a high standard of policing is delivered within communities.
4.19 HMCIC is the senior professional advisor on policing matters to Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers and the Scottish Executive. To this end, it would be in keeping with this role if the Cabinet Secretary were, upon receipt of HMCIC recommendations, to write to the Convener of the relevant Board/Authority seeking assurance that any recommendations were to be implemented and asking for the action plans, from the Board/Authority.
4.20 Such a development would ensure that responsibility remained at local level, in the hands of Police Board/Authority members whilst also taking note of the role both the Scottish Executive and HMCIC have in ensuring that high standards for policing are maintained across Scotland.
4.21 It is important to highlight that any movement toward this situation would only be possible in the event that recommendations evolve from their current form into an outcome based, measurable format.
Lesson 5. The Scottish Executive has not routinely played as active a role in following through HMIC reports as it possibly could. HMCIC should request that the Scottish Government engage more actively in the process of Force improvement by seeking Action Plans from Police Boards and Authorities following inspection reports.
Police Boards and Authorities
4.22 Police Boards and Authorities have a key role to play in the inspection process and may well be regarded as a "critical friend" to the chief constable.
4.23 In common with other local authority boards, membership of Police Boards/Authorities is comprised wholly of elected members.
4.24 It is salient to note that given the recent local elections, Boards and Authorities established under previous administrations have been dissolved and new Boards are yet to be appointed.
4.25 There is strong support for the view that Police Boards/Authorities give serious consideration to HMCIC reports. Boards/Authorities should be aware, via the chief constable, of the issues facing the relevant force. With this in mind, Police Boards/Authorities should rarely be surprised by any recommendations made by HMCIC. This view is borne out of the financial responsibilities that Boards/Authorities have and their holding of the chief constable to account in respect of capital spending and good governance. An exception to this situation may relate to recommendations that are wholly operational. In such circumstances it is less likely that Boards/Authorities will be fully aware of the issues due to the operational autonomy enjoyed by the chief constable. Indeed the concept of operational autonomy lacks clear definition and a wider understanding.
4.26 When HMCIC carries out an inspection of a particular Force it is common that a presentation setting out the findings of that inspection is made to the Police Board/Authority. It is equally common that chief officers are asked to give their view on the recommendations made in HMIC reports.
4.27 The Board/Authority has a crucial role made even harder by the absence of any recent guidance as to how best to discharge their duties. The last guidance was prepared prior to 1997 and so predates the Scottish Parliament. (It is understood that updated guidance is currently being finalised).
4.28 Clearly Police Boards/Authorities have key roles to play in assisting Forces to work through the action plans that follow inspections, in order to ensure successful discharge of recommendations. Given the clear lack of guidance available to Boards/Authorities in carrying out this role, and in light of the recent local elections and the subsequent change of Police Board membership, the review team feel that this is an opportune time for new guidance to be issued.
Lesson 6. Police Boards/Authorities have not been given guidance since devolution in how best to engage with HMIC procedures. In particular, HMCIC should work with the Scottish Executive to develop new guidelines for Police Boards/Authorities to assist them in responding to HMIC inspection reports.
Discharge of Recommendations
4.29 Having made recommendations and suggestions to Forces for improvement it is only right that these areas are revisited by HMCIC and consideration given to the success that a Force has had in reaching a point where HMCIC, the relevant chief constable and the Police Board can regard recommendations as being discharged.
4.30 As noted above, a review was previously carried out 18 months after a primary inspection and the same methodology was used in that process as is applied at primary inspection stage. To this end, recommendations were considered at the options appraisal meeting stage of a review.
4.31 At this time a Force reported to HMCIC on progress made in respect of individual recommendations. Forces would have had an expectation that a recommendation would either be discharged or remain as work in progress.
4.32 It was the responsibility of the relevant staff officer to then undertake fieldwork in order to confirm the Force position or to provide evidence contrary to the Force view.
4.33 Once the fieldwork was completed the staff officer and HMCIC discussed the recommendation and agreed whether to discharge or not. In either event, HMCIC would discuss the findings with the chief constable.
4.34 The discharge of a recommendation was, on the face of matters, a fairly clear-cut process. Should HMCIC have felt that sufficient work had been done in respect of the recommendation then it would be discharged. This view did not, however, reflect the work that was done in reaching that position.
4.35 It may have been that the staff officer felt the Force had done some work in relation to the recommendation which had led to a degree of improvement. The officer may also have believed that, whilst some improvement had been achieved, the Force was still not attaining its full potential. HMCIC then made a judgement as to whether the improvement was sufficient to merit the discharge of the pertinent recommendation. Discharge might have been made where HMCIC felt there has been sufficient improvement to bring the Force to a position where an acceptable standard was reached. There are no current means available to HMCIC to discharge recommendations on a sliding or graduating scale. Accordingly, a discharge has been absolute and does not reflect how much or how little progress has been made in the area concerned.
4.36 This is not a situation that is replicated in many other inspectorates. Partner agencies approach the discharge of recommendations on a sliding scale rather than in absolute terms. This sliding scale reflects the methodology and consideration applied by HMCIC by staff officers but goes on to apply it in a tangible manner.
4.37 One partner agency, for example, employs a six-part graduating scale when considering discharge of a recommendation that ranges from "not met" to "excels", with gradings in between that to reflect on-going work and allow for further development. This is generally regarded as a positive tool by partner agencies as they feel that this gives a more realistic view of progress.
Lesson 7. The range of judgements open to HMCIC when evaluating an inspected body's progress is too limited. HMCIC should move towards a graduating scale when considering progress. This scale would better reflect work done by inspected bodies in achieving their outcome-focussed recommendations.
Timing of Inspections
4.38 Unless in extreme circumstances, HMCIC carried out primary inspections and reviews within set time frames.
4.39 A different approach is undertaken by many other inspectorates. It is common for partner agencies to time review inspections in light of their findings at primary inspection. These follow up, or "light touch", inspections are seen by practitioners as a useful tool. They ensure that their own workloads reflect the needs of the bodies they inspect. Where an inspected body is performing well, it is not necessary to undertake another full inspection as regularly as it may be necessary to inspect bodies that are found to be performing less well.
4.40 This variance is also seen as something of a reward and sanction power, as adverse publicity both within the relevant profession and beyond often accompanies quick and repeated inspections. The opportunity to avoid this is seen by practitioners as good incentive for the achievement and maintenance of high standards.
4.41 In addition to the benefits of perception, such an approach allows inspection bodies to quickly re-engage with all stakeholders where conflict or disagreement arises.
4.42 The review team feel that the most recent process of rigid primary and review inspection cycles was too prescriptive and did not adequately consider an assessment of risk.
Lesson 8. The timing of inspections and reviews has been too rigid and did not necessarily reflect any risk assessment of performance. HMCIC should change the arrangements surrounding the timing of inspections and reviews to one based on an assessment of risk, linked to performance.
Staffing
4.43 HMCIC draws staff officers from serving officers across the UK. While this provides currency it also brings issues of continuity, training and expertise in audit and inspection. Developing the skills and experience in this type of work takes time and it seems reasonable to explore whether permanent posts could supplement the complement of secondees.
Lesson 9. A high turnover of staff leads to discontinuity and a loss of skills. HMCIC should explore the opportunities to engage permanent inspection staff.