Human Resources evaluation process

Report: 10
Date: 20 January 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an overview of the role of the Human Resources (HR) Evaluation Unit, a summary of the evaluation process, together with a summary of the key findings under each of the areas, which are evaluated. There is also a short section about how the evaluation process has evolved, and continues to evolve, as a result of our experience.

A. Recommendation

That members note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

Overview of the role of the HR Evaluation Unit

1. It was recognised in late 2001 that central HR did not have a structured mechanism for assessing how local HR management was being delivered, or whether HR policies, which were devised centrally, actually worked in the operational environment. A CompStat style of intrusive evaluation was identified as being a suitable model and the MPS HR evaluation process was built according to that model. The HR Evaluation Unit was established in November 2002 to ensure that the HR function is providing a service that supports operational policing and to monitor the implementation of HR policies across the Service.

2. Every HR unit in the MPS is evaluated on an annual basis with respect to the Operational Command Unit’s (OCU’s) performance in a number of key HR activity areas. The list of activities is formally reviewed once a year to ensure that we are still addressing the priority areas. The original HR activities which were identified to form part of the evaluation process were:

• Appraisals
• Attendance Management
• Communication
• Grievances
• Health and Safety
• Induction
• Recruitment and Selection
• Retention
• Training

3. The list of activity areas was last reviewed in August 2004. A number of changes were made and these have been introduced on a phased basis, with the last of them (MetHR and Positive Action) due to be implemented in the January 2005 process. For the new year, the evaluation areas are:

• Attendance Management
• Fairness at Work
• Flexible Working
• MetHR
• Positive Action
• The Partnership Framework Agreement
• Performance Development Reviews (PDRs)
• Training

4. The HR Evaluation Unit also conducts thematic inspections. We are currently collecting three months’ worth of data on the use of Statements of Expectations as a specific piece of work for the Head of Workforce Planning. Other thematic reviews conducted to date, or currently underway, are:

• Fairness at Work (last year and this year)
• The ‘Keep in Touch’ scheme

5. The following are planned for the future:

• Carer’s policy
• Gifts and Hospitality

Summary of the process

6. Each month a number of OCUs are evaluated as part of any one process. Boroughs are grouped according to their link commander cluster, and non-borough units are dealt with in their entirety (e.g. Resources Directorate or Specialist Operations). A questionnaire is sent in advance of the Evaluation Team’s visit, to the HR managers involved in the next evaluation process. This collects data on local practices and processes for each of the evaluation areas. The team also gathers corporate data where this is available.

7. Members of the HR Evaluation Team visit every HR unit across the MPS as part of the evaluation process. When on site, team members take care not to impinge on the time of staff employed within the HR unit. During the visit, we look at sickness management files to see how the attendance management policy is being applied and dip-sample personal files (20% of the OCU’s strength) to check whether they contain a recent PDR and work-related objectives. The visit includes an interview with the HR Manager as well as a meeting with the local sickness clerk.

8. The findings from the evaluation process are documented in a formal report and the results form the basis of a meeting between the relevant OCU commanders and HR managers and a panel comprising the Director of HR and relevant link commanders /business managers. These meetings identify areas of good performance and areas for improvement to be addressed by action plans. Each evaluation process takes approximately a month to complete, from the initial collation of documentation to the evaluation meeting, though the time spent at each OCU is not usually more than one day.

9. The following table provides an overview of the scope and scale of the HR evaluation process:

Key findings

Attendance management

10. The number of working days lost for both police officers and police staff are analysed for each OCU. The implementation of the attendance management policy and associated processes are evaluated and the evaluation team also looks at the number of police officers on recuperative duties. Sickness management files are individually checked for all police officers and staff who incur a period of long-term (i.e. 28 days or more) in a 12-month period, and all officers and staff who incur four or more absences in a 12-month period.

11. Most Borough OCUs have achieved a reduction in their police officer working days lost since their last evaluation. Based on this year’s evaluation processes, 31% of boroughs are above the police officer working days lost target of 9 days compared with 17% in non-borough units. This is an improvement on last year for both Territorial Policing and non-borough units, but it is most significant on borough. Overall, there is a lower level of recuperative and restricted duties officers in specialist units than there is on borough. There is a continuing downwards trend for both police officers and police staff, though the police staff sickness levels are higher than those for officers.

12. More than half the boroughs have a level of police staff working days lost above the target of 10 days, compared with 39% of non-borough units. Likewise, the best performance in respect of police officer attendance tends to be in specialist units. Short-term sickness absence is more prevalent amongst police staff than police officers, with 9% of police staff strength incurring frequent, short-term periods of sickness compared with an average of 3% of police officer strength. This trend is apparent across the MPS, in both borough and non-borough OCUs. There appears to be a relationship on some boroughs between second line manager review of staff with four or more absences and a reduction in police staff working days lost. Where sickness levels show the most significant increases, further examination often reveals that these are the result of complex long-term cases that have a disproportionate impact on the average figures.

13. The HR Evaluation Unit assesses the level of compliance with the attendance management policy. Regular contact during periods of long-term sickness is generally poor. On average, during the 2004 evaluation processes, line managers maintained regular contact with 29% of police officers who were sick for a period of more than 28 days and 32% of police staff during their long-term absence. There appears to be a relationship between a reduction in police officer working days lost and high levels of recuperative duties at many OCUs. On borough, there does not seem to be a relationship between a robust application of the attendance management policy in relation to the management of four or more absences and the level of working days lost. In the non-borough units there does seem to be such a relationship.

14. Initially, the introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) appeared to have a negative impact on police staff working days lost (for example at Belgravia and Charing Cross whose figures increased by 6.4 and 8 days respectively). However, in the October process when we last evaluated a number of boroughs, the working days lost per PCSO was lower than those for other police staff at all OCUs in the process, achieving the MPS target.

Communication

15. Nine boroughs and eight other OCUs carried out staff satisfaction surveys within the 12-month period we were evaluating. In addition, there was a directorate-wide staff survey within the Deputy Commissioner’s Command and a diversity survey across Specialist Crime Directorate. The surveys covered a range of HR-related issues including training needs, communication, induction, job and overall staff satisfaction, welfare, equal opportunities, sickness and PDRs. Most HR managers on borough have an open door policy and ensure that they are accessible to staff. The vast majority of HR units also have a dedicated local forum and/or intranet site and the HR managers publish information about HR performance. HR managers in non-borough OCUs are not always invited to sit on the local senior management team (SMT) which may impact not only on the status of HR but also on its ‘voice’ in certain OCUs. It should be noted, however, that one of the places where this is the case, is HR Directorate. One explanation for this may be that central and specialist units have many officers and staff at a more senior level than the Band C HR Manager and SMTs comprise ACPO ranks, directors and other staff in the senior pay structure.

Fairness at Work (FAW)

16. HR managers have overall responsibility for managing the FAW policy on OCUs. On average, each OCU has four FAW advisors, and had two matters of concern raised by staff through the FAW process in the 12-month period evaluated. However, the number of matters of concern raised by officers and staff on borough is slightly higher than that for staff in specialist/non-borough OCUs. The HR Evaluation Unit is currently conducting a thematic FAW review to evaluate the policy across the MPS. This is due to report by 31 January 2005. A general observation from the evaluation process is that the timescales are not being met for resolving cases (whether to the originator’s satisfaction or not).

Health and Safety (H&S)

17. Health and Safety branch carries out inspections on borough to certify if they have an effective and robust health and safety management system that complies with legal requirements and MPS corporate systems. Up to, and including, the July process, the Evaluation Team also looked at the implementation of H&S policies and processes but since we were effectively duplicating effort, it was decided that H&S should cease to be part of the HR evaluation process. On borough, H&S usually falls within the remit of the finance and resources manager. On non-borough OCUs, the day-to-day management of H&S falls within the remit of a number of different roles across the Directorate. Most HR units provide analysis of accidents recorded on MetAir to their senior management teams.

Induction

18. This year, the Evaluation Unit has looked at the management of local induction processes for officers and staff. During this time, the MPS has also introduced a corporate induction day as well as a multi-media induction package. The vast majority of OCUs have induction processes in place for police probationers and police staff as well as distributing a welcome pack containing information about the structure of the OCU, contact details and useful general information to new joiners. On borough, a more structured approach is provided in terms of inducting police probationers and certain police staff roles such as PCSOs, communications officers and station reception officers. New joiners to most boroughs meet with a member of the Senior Management Team. Formal local induction programmes (lasting for a day or more) are more common in specialist/non-borough OCUs.

19. Many boroughs operate mentoring or buddy schemes for certain roles such as acting sergeants, communications officers and female staff. In addition, the Development and Organisation Improvement Team has a 'Support and Development Programme' to offer support for minority ethnic officers in the 0-5 year service band. In the April evaluation process, we contacted new starters direct, to ask them about various aspects of the induction they had received. 97% of the respondents considered that the induction had been of benefit to them.

Partnership Framework Agreement (PFA)

20. The Partnership Framework Agreement underpins the joint commitment of the MPS and the four recognised police staff trade unions to work closely together, with effective negotiation, consultation and communication, to support MPS policing objectives. We started evaluating compliance with the agreement in September and as yet, we are not able to put this into an organisational context. The initial evaluations have revealed a low level of awareness of the agreement. During the evaluation visits, members of the evaluation team have been able to provide some assistance in clarifying aspects of the agreement and, as a result, many of the HR managers will be ensuring compliance in the future.

21. All but one borough evaluated to date on this area had a local trade union representative but only one borough was monitoring facility time. In non-borough units, only Traffic Wardens OCU monitors facility time and that particular OCU has well-established processes in respect of the Partnership Agreement. Not all boroughs have regular meetings between the senior management team and their union representatives and there is little action being taken across the MPS to positively encourage membership. However, all the HR managers consider that their relationship with the Trade Union representatives is good. The evaluation team sends the results of the PFA evaluation to the Trade Unions via the Employee Relations Unit but, to date, they have not commented on it.

Performance Development Reviews (PDRs)

22. The HR Evaluation Unit gathers data to determine the completion rate for PDRs and whether or not they were completed on time. We also dip-sample 20% of all personal files to check that work-related objectives are on file. Early in the year, whilst the overall completion rate of police PDRs on borough was poor, most of those which had been done by the time of the evaluation were completed on time. In non-borough OCUs, whilst the completion rate tended to be a little better, they were less likely to have been completed within the appropriate time-frame. The strongest performing boroughs are those where the HR units remind and/or chase line managers when their staff’s PDRs are due. During 2005, we will introduce qualitative evaluation of PDRs and objectives.

23. There does not appear to be a consistent correlation between the shortage of sergeants and a low level of PDR completion. In fact, PDR completion rates for police officers are higher than those for police staff on borough. Towards the end of the year, more boroughs had introduced training in PDRs and objective-setting. Also, as the year went on, more under-performing probationers had development objectives set for them than had been the case earlier in the year.

24. In addition to PDRs, probationer reports were also checked for all officers with more than 12 months’ service. Generally, probationers are more likely to have an up-to-date report on file than substantive officers. However, performance in terms of timeliness is not as strong and, again, a good completion rate does not correlate to timely completion.

Retention

25. The evaluation unit reviews the wastage attributable to voluntary resignations and transfers from the MPS (voluntary wastage) as a percentage of total wastage during a 12-month period. For the year September 2003 to August 2004, the MPS level of police officer voluntary wastage as a percentage of total wastage was 56%; the police staff MPS average was 53%. For all MPS staff, the level of retention has increased considerably. Generally, central and specialist OCUs achieved lower levels of both police officer and police staff voluntary wastage than the MPS average. Voluntary wastage as a percentage of strength for the MPS at the end of 2002/03 was 4% for both officers and police staff. At the end of 2003/04 this had reduced to 3% for police officers and was unchanged for police staff. This is an all-time low.

Training

26. The HR Evaluation Unit collects data about the management and delivery of training in respect of compliance with mandatory training requirements. All eligible officers should be trained in Officer Safety (OST), Emergency Life Support (ELS), Community and Race Relations (CRR), Policing Safely and Supervising Safely. The course that has the best compliance rate is CRR. There is no real difference between borough and non-borough units in respect of compliance with mandatory training. The best and worst performance in respect of OST, ELS and Policing Safely training is on non-borough units. Those units with the least number of officers trained in the mandatory courses are, more often than not, those which do not have a dedicated training unit of their own, whether on borough or not. Another problem seems to be that a number of officers join OCUs without up-to-date training. Non-attendance is dealt with by a variety of methods including compulsory written explanations, verbal warnings, notification to line managers and raising the issue at CompStat meetings. Where appropriate, and as identified through the HR evaluation process, action plans are developed to increase the number of officers trained in any particular OCU.

Changes introduced to the evaluation process as a result of our experience

27. Where a particular policy or process does not appear to be effectively implemented locally, the units involved have typically introduced tighter processes and monitoring as a result of the HR evaluation process. Where gaps have been found which are considered to be important, and after sufficient time has passed in order to allow for improvements to be made, the HR evaluation team carries out a follow-up visit to check whether the gap has been filled or improved. During the evaluation meetings, actions may also be given to HR Directorate. In these instances, the HR Evaluation Unit will notify the appropriate head of unit and collate progress information to report to the Director of HR. Examples of actions given to HR at the evaluation meetings include the provision of advice/good practice guidance around reviewing threshold payments at the point of an officer's PDR e.g. what account of an individual's sickness should be taken and corporate guidance around officers being assessed at PDR as 'not yet competent', and feedback about the design of the 2004/05 PDR objective form.

28. As part of the mechanism for driving improvements forward, link commanders and business managers are now more involved in the evaluation process and are invited to sit on the panel with the Director of HR, to hold OCUs to account for their HR performance.

29. A number of changes have been introduced to the evaluation process as a result of the review conducted in August this year. For example, flexible working, the use of MetHR and local Positive Action have emerged as priority areas and have been, or are due to be, introduced. Other areas, which are no longer considered to be of priority (such as retention and induction), have been dropped in order to accommodate the new areas.

30. Attendance Management is an area that features strongly in the evaluation process, with the cost of sickness absence being significant to the organisation. It became evident that, whilst good practice was being identified, it was not being shared across the MPS. This year, the HR evaluation unit therefore introduced good practice workshops on attendance management, which members of the evaluation team run for HR Managers.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. The HR Evaluation Unit assesses the implementation of HR policies locally. All MPS policies are subject to race equality and diversity reviews. There is no impact on race and equality as a result of the evaluation process. The selection of personal files or sickness management files for inspection is either entirely random (i.e. where we dip-sample 20%, we select one in every five names on the nominal roll) or based on a complete set (in the case of long-term sickness or four or more absences, we look at every file).

2. A process was established last month whereby all diversity-related elements in the HR evaluation are sent to Diversity Directorate each month. The only area in which we specifically collect diversity data is flexible working where we look to see the break down according to the officer/police staff split, gender and race in relation to the number of requests received and refused. Where relevant, diversity-related, data is made available to us, e.g. if an OCU has run an open day for females or Visible Ethnic Minorities, or has a mentoring scheme for members of certain groups, then this is also included in the report to Diversity Directorate.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

E. Background papers

• Monthly HR Evaluation Reports for January – November 2004

F. Contact details

Report author: Dawn Lucas

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback