Civil staff support on boroughs

Report: 11
Date: 3 October 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report responds to Members’ concerns regarding the combined impact of police/CSO recruitment and the moratorium on civil staff recruitment.

A. Recommendation

That Members note this report and comment on the general issues raised.

B. Supporting information

1. At the HR Committee held in May 2002, Members expressed concern about the impact of the moratorium on civil staff recruitment. This was expressed in the context of a time in which the level of police resources has grown and continues to increase. Consequently, the request was made that the current position be set out and discussed at this meeting.

2. The moratorium was introduced in November 2001 as part of a series of measures in order to deal with the then predicted financial forecast 2001/2. The effect of the moratorium was to suspend external recruitment unless special dispensation was sought and obtained from a specially commissioned expenditure star chamber. The measure was highly effective in controlling expenditure though its impact bore serious consequences for the organisation, especially at a time when far-reaching Grade/Band changes were being introduced as part of the Hay Review.

3. As part of the Budget 2002/3, this Committee will be aware of the measures introduced to contain expenditure and in particular, the details of £60m reductions noted and approved in February 2002. One of the reductions was a reduction of £10m in civil staff budgets. In order to apply this reduction, a number of options were considered, as follows:

1. To reduce the establishment by around 560 fte (full time equivalent) position on the basis that vacancies existed and could be achieved without personal impact.
2. To continue with the moratorium.
3. To review the entire establishment with a view to determining positions to be deleted.
4. To introduce a controlled vacancy factor.

4. None of these options was simple and all carried serious consequences. In at least one case (c), it was not a viable option insofar that such could not be carried out in time such as to generate the necessary savings. As such, a combination of (a) and (d) was finally selected on the basis that it represented the least negative impact option. In particular, the option resulted in:

1. The deletion of c.260 posts from the establishment (though not from boroughs) – the majority of which were already vacant; and
2. The introduction of a controlled vacancy factor of c. 5.6% across the MPS. (The MPS already carried a vacancy factor of 3%.) In applying this option, the vacancy factor was applied across the entire MPS including boroughs, though care was taken not to delete positions from boroughs.

5. As a consequence of the financial savings generated by this measure, the moratorium was lifted on 31 May 2002 and boroughs have been able to recruit since that date up to the level of their approved budgets. In order to continue to monitor the vacancy factor and the financial implications, a specially commissioned group has now been formed to ensure that the necessary level is being attained and if not, to recommend action as necessary.

6. In order to apply the vacancy factor, some other borough circumstances have needed to be taken into account. This includes – for separate reasons – the ringfencing of communications positions, which are therefore excluded from the vacancy factor. The effect of this was that the borough vacancy factor translated into 7.7% across boroughs.

7. To alleviate the impact on boroughs, a decision was taken to begin a process of decivilianising the role of analysts as well as implementing a substantial reduction in the number of traffic warden posts. However, it was still necessary to apply the vacancy factor. In order to implement this, borough civil staff allocations were based on their historical position. However, the ‘vacancy factor’ led to some disparities across boroughs. 50% were able to manage within the budget allocated, albeit that this restricted their ability to staff all functions, but 50% could not without consideration of other measures, including redundancy, an option that has so far been excluded and avoided. The ad-hoc nature of these reductions meant that no specific functions were targeted and impact was felt across a variety of functions. A significant consequence of this approach has been an increase in police officers undertaking roles that were previously filled by civil staff. Clearly this undermines the impact of the welcome increase in police numbers. In short, the impact on boroughs has been to create a process of decivilianisation of some civil staff roles. To sustain further reductions in the civil staff pay line in a managed and considered way, a review will need to be undertaken of which activities might need to be discontinued resulting in either redeployment or redundancy, or both.

8. All this has taken place at a time when police staffing levels have increased. This is detailed elsewhere in a report in front of the Committee but it is clear that we will need to keep a vacancy factor – and its ongoing viability – under review in the circumstances that police growth continues. Such review will need to encompass both:

1. The viability of an on-going vacancy factor of 5.6% in 2003/4 and thereafter any reduction will require identification of financial resources to compensate; and
2. The impact of increased police levels and the need for enhanced levels of support staff.

9. Set out at appendices 1 and 2 are outline summaries of the indicative headcount targets for civil staff on boroughs. It should be noted that civil staff budgets work to financial limits rather than particular headcount controls though the attached should provide a reasonable summary of the position as at 30 April 2002 and current.

10. As police levels continue to increase, it will be necessary to confirm a means by which civil support staff levels are properly maintained. As a general guide, the MPS is currently working to a ratio of 1(civil) to 2.5 (police). This is not to suggest that this is a firm allocation, rather it is a guideline that we will need to bear in mind, especially if police levels continue to increase as predicted. 

C. Equality and diversity implications

There is little doubt that the moratorium has prevented progress in achieving further improvements towards our desire to achieve better balance in our workforce. Now that the moratorium has been lifted, we are mindful that this provides a new impetus to achieve our aims. At the time of writing this report, the number of minority ethnic staff in our civil staff complement on boroughs (3279.35 FTE) amounts to 708.73 fte. The number of women amounts to 2774.92 FTE. The total MPS civil staff complement is 10,523.31 FTE, with 1951.98 minority ethnic staff and 6218.74 women.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications arising directly from this report. However, the report identifies the need for further reviews, which, in turn, might bear financial implications.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Martin Tiplady, Director of Human Resources.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback