Scottish Government

Annex C
Case Study - Lancashire Constabulary

When examining any subject for a thematic inspection, it is often very useful to look at how the same matter is dealt with by forces and agencies in other parts of the country. When that subject is performance management, particular issues arise.

In England and Wales, the way in which performance is assessed is significantly directed and influenced by central government. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for England, Wales and Northern Ireland ( HMIC) has an important formal role in this process, by producing and publishing formal ratings and league tables. The reliance south of the Border on the relatively rigid Police Performance Assessment Framework ( PPAF) has perhaps led the Service in Scotland until recently to disregard other real and positive benefits available from a strong emphasis on performance management. In the past this may have led to the relevance of the experience in England and Wales being discounted more than it deserved. This is compounded by the difficulties inherent in comparing the performance of Scottish and English/Welsh forces because of the different legal, recording and counting systems.

Nevertheless, we felt that it was important to extend our inspection research to forces elsewhere in the UK. In an initial scoping exercise we contacted a number of forces and attended the Association of Chief Police Officers' ( ACPO) Conference Excellence in Police Performance. Through this we were able to speak to many senior officers involved in performance management and to practitioners not only from the service but from HMIC and the various parts of the Home Office. As a result, we decided to visit Lancashire Constabulary in order to examine its approach and procedures in relation to performance management.

In 2007, HMIC (England & Wales) assessed Lancashire Constabulary as being one of the two joint top performing forces in England and Wales under PPAF. At the time of our visit, the force had 3,586 police officers, 159 police and community support officers ( PCSOs) and 1,709 police staff, covering an area of some 2,000 square miles and a population of 1.4 million. It had six territorial Basic Command Units ( BCU), each commanded by a chief superintendent.

Lancashire Constabulary had implemented performance management at all levels within the organisation, from the force executive down to how services were provided operationally. Performance management was clearly recognised as being the responsibility of every member of staff, not just of senior managers or performance departments. And there was impressive, widespread knowledge of what the force was trying to achieve, how that was to be done and how well it was doing.

The opportunity arose during our visit to attend the force's monthly strategic tasking and co-ordinating meeting. The Chief Constable chairs these meetings, prior to which participants, and others invited as required, gather for a breakfast meeting. This latter forum is informal and allows the Chief Constable to cover matters such as promotions and retirements, presentations, updates on selected issues, and generally provides an opportunity to bring items to the attention of the senior management team.

The strategic tasking and co-ordinating meeting that we attended had performance as the first item on the agenda. It should be pointed out that the force appeared not to differentiate between performance information and information for tasking, but instead looked at the picture as a whole. NIM purists may claim that this confuses and diffuses effort but, we would suggest that, as long as the outcome is positive both in respect of short-term operational tasking and longer-term performance improvement, then people should use what works for them.

It was evident to us that all participants in the strategic tasking and co-ordinating meeting had a good level of knowledge about the information that was being discussed. We also learned that the BCUs held meetings beforehand in order to discuss any items that might cause particular debate or conflict. This allowed them to participate in the strategic tasking and co-ordinating meeting with a shared understanding of the issues, or to put forward a consensus view should this be required. It was clearly evident that the force operated within a culture that had embraced performance management.

We also visited one of the force's BCUs. Here we found a well established structure, built upon distinct geographic sectors each commanded by an inspector. These inspectors had control over the resources for their sector, including response policing teams, and were both responsible and accountable for performance in their area. Senior managers were clearly pleased with the way that performance was being handled at the BCU. They were also aware of the crucial role of sergeants in making sure that continuous improvement underpinned all their processes and procedures. In spite of this, it was accepted that, at that time, investment in that rank by the force was limited.

After consultation within the BCU, a new process for inducting and managing sergeants was introduced. This new process involved all newly promoted sergeants and those transferred into the BCU spending half a day with the chief superintendent and the superintendent, during which their expectations of the sergeant role were outlined. These messages were reinforced in a booklet issued to each sergeant, setting out these expectations and priorities.

Newly promoted sergeants were also subjected to a detailed appraisal process, culminating nine months after promotion in a detailed report on the individual's strengths and weaknesses against the competencies for the role. The report was compiled from different sources and included elements of 360° appraisal. The superintendent then met with the sergeant and formulated an action plan to address any identified areas of weakness or development needs. Progress against the action plan was then considered when deciding whether the officer should be confirmed in rank. Indications were that officers welcomed the guidance and clarity that this process provides.

The BCU has now introduced a process whereby any member of its management team can nominate a sergeant to go through this appraisal process if there are concerns about the officer's performance. This has been found to be beneficial, and other sergeants are nominating themselves for the process because they feel that it is good preparation when applying for promotion.

Having spoken with several sergeants during our visit, we were impressed by the professionalism, focus on priorities and the leadership displayed. The sergeants clearly understood their role and the need to provide clear leadership to their teams while retaining a focus on quality. The tasking process clearly provided direction for them and they demonstrated that they were very familiar with the processes involved and were very clear that for it to work properly that the results of the tasks carried out had to be collated and fed back into the process. To the inspection team this illustrated what could be achieved when senior management had confidence in its sergeants and provided them with appropriate support and guidance. It was also apparent that sergeants had a very good understanding of how their officers performed individually and how, as a team, they performed in relation to others. This has undoubtedly contributed towards the strong performance that Lancashire Constabulary has achieved.

About Lancashire Constabulary

Lancashire Constabulary has been assessed as one of the joint two top performing forces in England and Wales. In the Police Performance Assessments 2006/07 published by HMIC for England and Wales and the Home Office this force's performance is summarised as:

In the summary comments the force is described as a "high performing organisation giving value for money".