Early Insights on Key Themes

The insights described below provide a snapshot of some of the issues raised in relation to the key themes in our provisional reporting framework. They are not intended to be exhaustive but rather to provide a flavour of some of the main issues raised in our evidence gathering to date. Some of these insights relate directly to EDIHR strategy while others are more contextual. However, all are relevant to Police Scotland’s ability to make meaningful progress in relation to our four strategic outcomes above.

Governance and Oversight

Our overall impression is that there is a clear understanding of, and belief in, the Executive’s commitment to the EDIHR agenda. However, we have also been left with a strong impression of an awareness gap between those responsible for oversight and leadership and the reality on the ground, in particular the ownership of the agenda at middle management level (Sergeant, Inspector, Chief Inspector).

The greatest challenge we heard, and observed, to driving cultural change within the service was the pressures on frontline resourcing. This is something we want to return to and attempt to quantify over the next phase of the review. However, at this stage, our sense is of a real concern for morale because of the impact on the ability to take time off and the concomitant effect on work-life balance. This is felt most acutely in frontline policing and by those dealing with the operational consequences of such pressures, including grievances. In this context there was felt to be little or no space to reflect or devote time to learning, training and development on EDIHR issues.

Against this backdrop, we have encountered a sense of what we have referred to as ‘initiativitis’, where a constant stream of initiatives, projects, activities, and communications, all of which are well intentioned and have merit, are not joined up in practice.

Prior to undertaking interviews at divisional level, we had already gained an impression of this from ongoing attendance at and observation of the Policing Together (EDIHR) Strategic Oversight Board. During our conversations, it became clear that communication on EDIHR issues via email, intranet and poster campaigns was seen to be of limited value in shaping attitudes, behaviours and understanding in the absence of time being set aside for face-to-face peer learning and reflection on practice.

Speaking to those in more senior ranks at divisional level, it became even more clear that operationalisation of strategy is a significant barrier to progress. We gained a sense of 13 divisions all trying to reinvent their own wheel and a concern that there is an urgent need to streamline and prioritise the number and range of initiatives so that they can work more effectively to improve culture and behaviours. A related concern is the service’s approach to the evaluation of initiatives which appears piecemeal and to lack consistency and rigour. The aforementioned creation of the executive post to lead the Policing Together Programme will be addressing these matters and we will be closely monitoring the effectiveness and impact of this work. We shall be reporting on this in the coming reports.     

Dealing with complaints and grievances

In her report, Dame Angiolini commented on the need to improve frontline resolution and increase the use of less formal avenues to reduce conflicts. At this stage in our review, our impression is that the tendency to jump straight to formal grievance processes without the opportunity to pursue mediation persists with a consequential significant administrative burden. For senior managers this can be a drain on time and resource which prevents a clearer focus on driving improvement.

Alternatively we encountered a degree of scepticism and even outright fear about raising concerns at all, either informally or formally, because it can just lead to the person being moved and the issue being avoided. We heard of people being ‘punished’ for raising issues or concerns, for example being sidelined within teams or moved to a less convenient location.

We also heard of poor behaviour being known and seen ‘in plain sight’ with no action being taken; a vicious circle of the personnel affected not having the confidence to report concerns, peers not speaking up and managers not taking action, exacerbated where the concern relates to a manager.

A further point raised by Dame Angiolini related to the definition of ‘misconduct’ to raise the threshold for matters which go down the statutory route. We heard anecdotal concerns about the formal process undertaken by the Professional Standards Department (PSD) taking too long and concluding that the matter should be dealt with via local resolution, by which time it was too late to take effective action. By the same token we are aware of one instance where significant efforts to dismiss an officer were frustrated by obstacles beyond Police Scotland’s control.

Either way, PSD was seen as critical in setting the tone and concern was raised about how consistent it was in addressing EDIHR issues. It was suggested that the department needed a deeper knowledge of EDIHR issues and how they manifest or are breached in workplace settings. There was also a view that PSD were more prepared to act where there were breaches involving an element of criminality but less prepared to address issues of misconduct involving aspects of discrimination related to protected characteristics.

While it was clear to us that progress is urgently needed in this area, there appears not to be a settled view on how this might happen. On the one hand there was a view that PSD should take a stronger lead, on the other a concern that local and senior managers are disempowered from decision making. These are issues which we want to discuss with the PSD and this will be an important component of the next phase of our review.

In this context there was a divergence of view among those we spoke to about the commitment to introduce an independent advocate to support colleagues to raise concerns about discrimination. While the majority of diversity staff associations and some senior divisional managers saw merit in the commitment, others were more sceptical and the Scottish Police Federation were opposed believing that it undermined their role.

Role of Middle/People Management

We encountered significant concerns about the absence of effective performance management systems during the first decade of Police Scotland’s existence. Middle managers (Sergeants, Inspectors, Chief Inspectors) were considered to be the most neglected in this regard and at the same time the most important in helping to understand and shape culture on the frontline.

We heard repeatedly that people are not assessed, trained to be managers and that promotion is secured by demonstrating technical skills and experience. Middle managers were described as the ‘sponges’ who had to absorb issues from the top and bottom, resulting in pressing and competing workloads, with insufficient training and guidance.

Policies and Practice

We heard that Police Scotland has no shortage of policies, including Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS), ‘give me an issue and I’ll find you a policy.’ However, the extent to which they were up to date and fit for purpose was sometimes questioned, alongside a concern that their rigidity mitigates against managers exercising their own judgement.

This was combined with a fear of getting the SOPS wrong and of being on the backfoot, reacting to events rather than anticipating them. ‘Hindsight policing’ was said to contribute to low risk appetite, undermining discretion and in turn the professionalism of officers.

Training and Development

The use of self-directed learning via Moodle was almost universally criticised among those we have spoken to. It was repeatedly referred to as a ‘tick-box’ approach and easy to ‘work around.’ While it was seen as having some value in relation to technical or factual matters such as changes to legislation, it was considered to have little or no value in relation to raising awareness of EDIHR issues and driving changes in attitudes and values.

It was considered to be particularly ineffective for officers in frontline roles which were not primarily desk based. We heard consistently that valuing EDIHR should mean making proper time for it and delivering training face to face which should be targeted at those who need it and made a proper requirement.

We heard considerable skepticism that training and development is not mandatory or assessed in any meaningful way. In particular, we were told that Moodle was ineffective in driving the culture, values and behaviours needed to make Policing Together real on the ground including good people and performance management.

We heard that training on EDI issues is needed to assist those in supervisory positions to manage for equality. The lack of EDI training for those who are first line and middle managers results in them having to deal with a range of complex issues using their discretion based on individual moral judgements. There was a view that the current leadership and development modules were not sufficient, robust or effective in relation to EDI matters.

We were reminded that training can assist but should not be seen as a panacea for dealing with issues of prejudice, poor behaviour and discrimination. The current approach to EDI training was described by some as a ‘knowledge dump’ and it was thought that more time was required to properly deliver the training and to allow officers to process it. There was also a desire for training content to draw more heavily on Scottish examples and expertise.

The establishment of a pro-active training and development unit was welcomed but concerns were expressed that LTD did not currently have sufficient resources or staff to deliver all aspects of EDIHR training for example, to provide depth training to those undertaking Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessments.

From observation of training sessions, training material and in discussion with staff, more discussion is required as to how ‘lived experiences’ could be used to inform training content, policy directions, everyday policing as well as providing quality assurance. This is an area the training and development working group will focus on as part of the next stages of its work. The development of the need for a learning log was also identified to ensure that officers were supported to develop any gaps in their training or knowledge in EDIHR. We acknowledge the review being undertaken within LTD to address these issues and the creation and development of a bespoke face to face one day training programme for all personnel covering EDI and HR. Once again these will be subject to scrutiny and monitoring and reported on in coming reports. 

Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion

We have already referred to the perceived inadequacy of promotion processes in relation to people management skills. We also encountered a perceived risk that MyCareer may drive the wrong sort of behaviours because it will be used primarily as an evidence gathering tool, driving mini-initiatives or ‘pet projects’ and evidence gathering for individual promotions rather than culture and system change.

We heard that it was easy to learn the language of the Competency and Values Framework but that there was insufficient focus on asking those seeking promotion how they are living it as part of their everyday practice. There was also a concern that the application of the Framework was less relevant to those with little interest in seeking promotion.

At the same time, we also encountered concerns about the high number of temporary promotions in place to fill gaps, sometimes over extended periods even where officers were deemed to have failed assessment processes.