Strathclyde Police Authority 
Best Value Audit and Inspection follow-up report

Prepared for the Accounts Commission and Scottish ministers
September 2012

The Accounts Commission
The Accounts Commission is a statutory, independent body which, through the audit process, requests local authorities in Scotland to achieve the highest standards of financial stewardship and the economic, efficient and effective use of their resources. The Commission has four main responsibilities:
•	securing the external audit, including the audit of Best Value and Community Planning
•	following up issues of concern identified through the audit, to ensure satisfactory resolutions
•	carrying out national performance studies to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in local government
•	issuing an annual direction to local authorities which sets out the range of performance information they are required to publish.
The Commission secures the audit of 32 councils and 45 joint boards and committees (including police and fire and rescue services).

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland
HMICS operates independently of police forces, police authorities and the Scottish Government and exists to monitor and improve the police service in Scotland. HMICS does this on behalf of the Scottish public by:
•	monitoring, through self-assessment and inspection, how effectively the police service in Scotland is fulfilling its purpose and managing risk
•	supporting improvement by identifying good practice, making recommendations and sharing our findings in order to achieve better outcomes for Scotland’s communities
•	providing advice to Scottish ministers, police authority and joint board members and police forces and services.
Even though HMICS is independent of the Scottish Government, ministers can call upon the Inspectorate to undertake particular pieces of work.

Findings
1. The Commission published in July 2011 its findings in relation to the audit and inspection report on the performance by Strathclyde Police and Strathclyde Police Authority of their statutory duties on Best Value and Community Planning. The report was produced jointly by the Controller of Audit and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland.
2. The Commission had found that the authority needed to strengthen its arrangements for oversight of Strathclyde Police and its leadership of the force’s continuous improvement agenda. Improved support and training was required to help authority members to develop their understanding, build their skills and gain greater confidence in holding the chief constable to account. The Commission requested that a further report be provided in around 12 months to enable the Commission to review the authority’s progress in fulfilling its role more effectively and in getting better value from the resources it has available to it.
3. The Commission accepts this follow-up report from the Controller of Audit and, in particular, notes the changes to the elected membership of the authority following the May 2012 local government election. While the Commission is disappointed with progress since the first report, it is encouraged by the recent adoption by the authority of a consolidated improvement plan and the commitment made by the new convener and the authority to implement the plan.
4. The Commission emphasises the need for the plan to be implemented fully and the deadlines in the plan met.
5. The Commission encourages the convener to continue to exercise his leadership role in ensuring the improvement plan is being taken forward. It is essential that the chief executive and his team in turn provide effective support to the convener and elected members in addressing the continuing business of the authority; the work associated with the improvement plan; and the work involved in the introduction of the national police force.
6. The Commission has requested that progress against the improvement plan be fully monitored and that the Commission be kept informed of progress.
7. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland concurs with the Commission’s findings.
Introduction 
This joint report is made by the Controller of Audit to the Accounts Commission under section 102(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS) under section 33 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.
The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 introduced statutory duties relating to Best Value and Community Planning. The Act also amended the audit arrangements set out in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to cover Best Value and gave powers to the Accounts Commission to examine Best Value in police authorities. HMICS has a statutory duty under section 33 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 to inspect police forces and common police services, and to report to ministers on their state and efficiency. The 2003 Act extends this to include provision for HMICS to inquire into and report to Scottish ministers on whether a local authority is carrying out its functions both as a police authority and in relation to a number of matters including Best Value.
The joint report on the Best Value Audit and Inspection of Strathclyde Police and Strathclyde Police Authority, along with the findings from the Accounts Commission and HMICS, was published in July 2011. This is a follow-up to that report.
The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 27 June 2012. It creates a single police service and a single fire and rescue service to begin operating from 1 April 2013. The Bill puts in place new arrangements for the structure, governance and management of policing in Scotland. This includes the creation of a Scottish Police Authority to govern the new service and hold the chief constable to account. This report reflects that the authority is in a transitional phase.
Local elections were held on 3 May 2012 and as a result there was a need to constitute a new authority administration. The membership of the authority changed significantly following the local elections, with only 11 of the previous 34 members returning. The newly constituted authority met for the first time on 7 June 2012. At this meeting Councillor Philip Braat (Glasgow City Council) was appointed as the authority’s new convener.
The audit team met with the convener and chief executive in July 2012 to discuss the draft report. Councillor Braat took the opportunity to highlight what changes are being made to how the authority manages its business. He recognises the limited time available to the current authority and is focusing on delivering improvement for the authority. The chief executive is preparing, in conjunction with an officer from Strathclyde Police Force, a consolidated improvement plan. The plan will have clear objectives with specific timescales for completion and will be a standing item for discussion at each full authority meeting. Councillor Braat is meeting with the chief constable to discuss how the authority and force can work more effectively together. A new approach to training authority members will be implemented with short sessions taking place before authority meetings. Councillor Braat has also implemented an appraisal system for the chief executive which will involve an external senior council official.
We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided to the team by Councillor Curran (Convener, April 2010 to May 2012); Councillor Braat; the elected members of Strathclyde Police Authority; Authority Chief Executive Keith Mannings; Chief Constable Stephen House, Strathclyde Police; and all other staff involved.
Strathclyde Police Authority
Strathclyde Police Authority (previously known as Strathclyde Joint Police Board and still statutorily constituted as a joint police board) is responsible for a revenue-policing budget of approximately £448 million. It is the largest joint police board in Scotland made up of 34 elected members from 12 councils. In 2007,
it created a dedicated support function, unique to Scotland, employing 11 staff who make up the authority office. The authority office has an annual budget of approximately £1.3 million.  
The authority appointed a chief executive in September 2009, replacing the previous clerk, and instructed him to carry out a review into its governance and scrutiny of Strathclyde Police. An improvement plan was developed and a new committee structure, shown in Exhibit 1, was implemented in April 2011.
Accounts Commission and HMICS findings 2011
The Accounts Commission’s findings said that the authority needed to strengthen its arrangements for oversight of Strathclyde Police and its leadership of the force’s continuous improvement agenda. Improved support and training was required to help authority members to develop their understanding, build their skills and gain greater confidence in holding the chief constable to account. The Commission did not consider that the authority was getting sufficient value from its dedicated support function and said that better support would enable it to carry out its governance and scrutiny role more effectively. It recommended that the authority should monitor the support function’s performance, including holding the chief executive to account for the delivery of improvements within agreed timescales. The findings also emphasised the need for the authority and force to establish more effective joint working arrangements to develop a shared vision for policing across the Strathclyde area. HMICS found that Strathclyde Police was performing well and that the force demonstrated many of the aspects of Best Value.
The Commission required the authority to address the improvement agenda set out in the joint Best Value Audit and Inspection report. This included the following priorities:
Joint improvements
•	Establish more effective joint working arrangements with the force and clarify the role of the police authority office.
•	Work jointly with the force to develop a shared vision for policing across the Strathclyde area.
Authority improvements
•	Adopt a more proactive approach to gathering performance and improvement information from the force to facilitate more effective oversight and scrutiny.
•	Identify opportunities for increased involvement in diversity and equality activity.
•	Strengthen member training and development, with a focus on improving member understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
•	Adopt a more robust approach to monitoring the authority’s improvement agenda arising from the chief executive’s review of authority governance.
•	Establish arrangements for monitoring the cost and effectiveness of the support function to ensure that it is sufficiently adding value.
The Commission requested that the Controller of Audit provide a further report in around 12 months, to enable the Commission to review the authority’s progress in fulfilling its role more effectively and in getting better value from the resources it has available to it. This report focuses on the authority’s actions to address the improvement agenda set out in the joint Best Value Audit and Inspection report.
Summary
Overall conclusions
1. The authority accepted the Commission’s findings and agreed a schedule of tasks to address them in October 2011. The authority can demonstrate improvement in a number of areas; however, the overall pace of change has been slow, and oversight and challenge by authority members of the joint Best Value improvement agenda and the schedule of tasks has been limited.
2. Members of the newly constituted authority need to be briefed on the outstanding items and measures being taken to address them as a matter of priority. The authority needs to set realistic deadlines for implementation of the schedule of tasks, and progress should be subject to regular scrutiny by members.
3. Since the publication of the joint Best Value Audit and Inspection report in July 2011, there have been a number of improvements. The authority has:
•	increased involvement in diversity and equality activity, and developed and progressed an action plan to improve leadership and scrutiny in this area
•	strengthened its scrutiny of the force’s performance and improvement through the introduction of a new committee structure and a revised code of corporate governance
•	closely monitored finance, staffing and asset management arrangements within the force through authority meetings and the budget working group, and considered savings and efficiencies as well as the implications of police reform
•	introduced regular monitoring and scrutiny of the authority office budget
•	developed and agreed a member training framework and implemented an induction programme for new members.
4. However, in other areas there has been limited progress:
•	There remains an absence of genuine joint decision-making between the authority and the force and the authority has had little involvement in shaping future policing priorities.
•	The authority has not significantly strengthened its strategic oversight and challenge of the force’s approach to partnership working.
•	The role of the authority’s support function is still not fully understood by all authority members.
•	The proposed staff review and job evaluation of the authority office remains ongoing.
•	There is limited evidence that the chief executive is being held to account for the performance of the authority office or delivery of the improvement agenda.
•	There has been an absence of regular reporting and monitoring of the recommendations from the chief executive’s review of authority governance.
5. The creation of a single police force for Scotland, which will begin operating on 1 April 2013, means that the newly constituted authority will only be in place for ten months.  It is crucial that business as usual is maintained over this period and the improvement agenda continues to be progressed. Other priorities for the new authority include facilitating training to new members, improving how the authority office does business, and introducing greater oversight and scrutiny of the chief executive.
Improvement agenda
6. There are still a number of key areas where the authority needs to improve. These are detailed below:
•	The authority should continue to strengthen joint working arrangements with the force to facilitate genuine joint decision-making.
•	The authority should adopt a more proactive approach to gathering performance and improvement information on force partnership working.
•	The authority should continue to monitor the effectiveness of its support function and its business arrangements. The staff review and job evaluation should be progressed as a matter of priority.
•	The authority should introduce formal arrangements for holding the chief executive to account for the performance of the authority office and delivery of the improvement agenda.
Progress in Strathclyde Police Authority
Improvement plan
The authority does not have a comprehensive improvement plan. It has developed a schedule of tasks to address the Accounts Commission’s findings; however, this is in addition to the recommendations already in place from the chief executive’s review initiated in March 2010. The absence of a single, focused plan with clear priorities, and the lack of regular reporting against this, reduces the members’ ability to effectively scrutinise and challenge on progress. Members are unable to demonstrate leadership of the improvement agenda.
7. The joint Best Value Audit and Inspection (2011) found slow progress in relation to improvement activity. It also highlighted that authority members needed to demonstrate clearer leadership of the improvement agenda, which could be achieved by adopting a more robust approach to monitoring the progress of implementation of the actions arising from the chief executive’s review. The 2011 report identified important areas such as joint working and partnership activity where progress was reported as complete but where we found no evidence that this was the case.
8. Following his appointment in September 2009, the authority members requested the chief executive to carry out a review into the authority’s governance and scrutiny of Strathclyde Police. The review was first reported to the authority in June 2010 and the resulting improvement plan was agreed in August 2010. The improvement plan contains 14 recommendations designed to improve performance across a range of areas. These include joint working with the force, scrutiny, community planning, member training and a number of internal management matters such as the procurement of treasury management services. The improvement plan was agreed by members in August 2010.
9. The authority does not have a single, comprehensive improvement plan. Following the publication of the joint Best Value Audit and Inspection report, the chief executive, in conjunction with the force, prepared initial proposals for addressing the improvement agenda set out in the report. These were presented to the full authority in August 2011 and authority members agreed that the authority and force should develop a schedule of tasks for approval at the next authority meeting. The schedule of tasks, which fully addresses the improvement agenda from the 2011 Best Value Audit and Inspection, was agreed by members at the October 2011 authority meeting. The schedule identifies joint tasks as well as tasks specific to the force and the authority. There is considerable overlap between the schedule of tasks and the chief executive’s improvement plan. This duplication could weaken scrutiny of improvement activity as it is not clear to members which set of actions they should focus on. At the October meeting, members agreed to remit the monitoring of the schedule of tasks to the Resources, Best Value and Improvement Committee, with regular reports to be submitted to this committee.
10. The authority office has not provided the authority with timely updates on improvement activity. The last update of progress against the recommendations of the chief executive’s review was made to the August 2011 authority meeting. At that time, ten of the 14 tasks were reported as complete. Since August 2011, there is no evidence of monitoring by the full authority of the remaining tasks despite the authority’s schedule of tasks containing an agreed action for progress against the chief executive’s improvement plan to be reported to full authority meetings. Implementation of some of the outstanding tasks, including the staff review and job evaluation and review of the authority’s budget, were discussed at the December 2011 and March 2012 meetings of the management subcommittee. This subcommittee has a strategic role and gives guidance to authority officers. Its membership includes the convener, two vice-conveners and three additional members. The minutes of the management subcommittee are considered at authority meetings.
11. The force reported its own actions as being complete at the October 2011 authority meeting. However, it has not reported progress on joint improvement activity.
12. Appendix 1 combines the recommendations of the chief executive’s improvement plan and the schedule of tasks into a single table. This highlights the extent to which the actions in the improvement plan and schedule of tasks cut across the same areas. For each recommendation, the table outlines progress reported at full authority meetings, the target date for completion and actual progress based on review of committee minutes and interviews with authority office staff and members. Thirteen of the 23 recommendations have been reported as complete; however, the evidence suggests only nine have been fully implemented, eight have been partially implemented and six have not been implemented.
13. Members lack clear leadership of the improvement agenda for the police authority. They have failed to adopt a more robust approach to reviewing and challenging progress of improvement activity. The Resources, Best Value and Improvement Committee has met on three occasions since the decision by members at the October 2011 authority meeting to remit monitoring of the schedule of tasks to it. There is no evidence of reporting of progress against the schedule of tasks at these meetings. The most recent update was presented to the December 2011 meeting of the management subcommittee. Individual tasks have been delegated to various authority committees, for example diversity and equality improvements have been monitored by the Audit, Governance and Risk Committee. There is, however, no evidence of oversight of the entire programme of improvements since December 2011.
14. The schedule of tasks included an action for the chief executive to present a final report to a full authority meeting once all improvement actions, including those from the chief executive’s review, had been implemented. The schedule of tasks included a target date of February 2012 for completion of the report. It has not been prepared and the chief executive now plans to present it to the August 2012 authority meeting.
15. Exhibit 2 shows the timeline for the agreement and reporting of the chief executive’s review, the joint Best Value improvement agenda and the schedule of tasks.
Joint working with the force
There is room for improvement in the joint working arrangements between the force and the authority. There is little evidence that the authority has had active involvement in shaping future policing priorities. Authority members’ uptake of opportunities to contribute to strategic priorities for the force has been poor. However, the force should continue to involve members in discussions. Joint working on diversity and equality activity has improved. 
Shared vision
16. A key recommendation of the joint Best Value Audit and Inspection was that the authority and force work jointly to develop a shared vision for policing across the Strathclyde area. The Accounts Commission found that the authority needed to become more involved in shaping the policing priorities for the area. While the authority endorsed the vision and strategic direction established by the force, it was not actively involved in its development. Our recent work has found that the authority continues to have limited involvement in shaping future policing priorities for Strathclyde.
17. The Strategic Planning and Performance Committee was set up in April 2011. Members agreed at its first meeting, in August 2011, to be involved in the determination of future policing priorities. This was to include agreeing a vision for policing which reflects the views of communities. A target date of February 2012 was agreed for completion of the force’s planning process. At the same meeting, the force’s head of performance and analysis provided members with an initial briefing on the force’s strategic planning and performance management process.
18. The force invited authority members to participate in workshops as part of its strategic planning process for 2012/13. The workshops were held in December 2011 and January 2012 and participants included police staff and police officers with responsibility for performance. The aim of the workshops was, among other things, to discuss and agree new draft key performance indicators for 2012/13, which would be presented to the chief constable for approval and implementation. The workshops were very poorly attended by members, with just three participating in the December workshop and one attending in January. This was despite the authority office contacting authority members to inform them the workshops were taking place. This was a missed opportunity for the authority to become actively involved in setting the vision and strategic direction for policing in Strathclyde.
Arrangements with the force
19. The Accounts Commission findings from the joint Best Value Audit and Inspection emphasised the need for more effective joint working between the authority, its support function and the force to ensure they deliver best value for people in the Strathclyde area. This would require clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the elected members of the authority and the staff the authority employs in its support function. We have found during our recent audit that improvements could still be made to joint working arrangements between the force and the authority.  
20. Following consideration of the chief executive’s review recommendations, members noted that the authority’s scheme of delegated authority should be reviewed to ensure it still meets the needs of the authority and the force. This recommendation was incorporated within the authority’s schedule of tasks and agreed with the force. The review was to be completed by January 2012. The deputy chief executive has taken responsibility for updating the scheme of delegation and as of May 2012 was in the process of completing it.
21. The implementation of a member special interest area scheme was one of the recommendations of the chief executive’s review. The scheme involves members taking a lead in one of nine portfolio areas to allow particular focus on important policing issues and encourage joint discussion with the force. Member leads operate on behalf of all authority members and may bring portfolio business to the attention of the authority and its committees. Portfolio leads were agreed at the April 2011 authority meeting.
22. Member involvement in the scheme has been limited. A member information seminar on the special interest area scheme was held on 7 September 2011. This was attended by the convener, the chief executive, an inspector from the force and five of the nine portfolio leads. There is evidence of good work being carried out by the portfolio lead for diversity, equality and human rights; however, the involvement of other members in the scheme is less clear. Two portfolio leads confirmed in interviews that they had not met with their force counterparts.
23. Further information on clarity of roles and responsibilities of members and the authority’s support function can be found in the authority office section of this report.
Diversity and equality
24. The Accounts Commission found that the authority did not provide effective leadership of equalities. There was no elected member involvement in the force’s diversity and equality steering group. The authority did not effectively scrutinise the force’s diversity and equality activity and members had limited opportunity to deliver their role in this area. We have found improvements in joint working on diversity and equality and the authority has greater oversight of the force’s activity in this area. 
25. In April 2011, the authority appointed a portfolio lead for diversity, equality and human rights as part of the member special area interest scheme. The authority’s policy and performance officer was given responsibility for providing support. Since then, the portfolio lead, and the policy and performance officer have met with the force on a number of occasions and have attended the force’s diversity and equality steering group. They produced an action plan to improve the authority’s leadership and scrutiny of diversity and equality activity. Their recommendations were agreed at the February 2012 Audit, Governance and Risk Committee. Good progress was reported at the April 2012 meeting with four of the six recommendations implemented. This work has had a positive impact, particularly in improving the authority’s access to diversity and equality information from the force.
26. The member responsible for diversity, equality and human rights did not stand for re-election and is consequently no longer a member of the authority. It is crucial that the new member appointed to this portfolio has the appropriate skills and experience to continue to drive improvement in this area and ensure that the action plan is completed.
27. The force’s standard operating procedures for diversity, equality and dignity in employment were agreed at the August 2011 Human Resources Committee. Since then, there is evidence of regular consideration of the force’s diversity and equality activity by the same committee.  
28. The authority made a proposal to the force to develop a joint diversity and equality strategy at the force’s diversity and equality board meeting in October 2011. The proposal was not accepted by the force, who wrote to the authority office in November 2011 expressing reservations due to the impending police reform and the practicalities of how a joint strategy might work. The authority has not subsequently developed its own strategy and it is unclear how it monitors its own equality and diversity responsibilities.
Performance and improvement
The authority is taking a more proactive approach to gathering performance information in areas such as community consultation and engagement and in force improvement activity. This has led to greater challenge of the force by members. However, it has not progressed as well in relation to its strategic oversight and challenge of the force’s approach to partnership working. The authority closely monitors the force’s use of resources as well as its position on savings and efficiencies.  
Force partnership working
29. The Accounts Commission found that the authority was not proactively seeking information on the force’s partnership work and using this information to assure itself that partnership working was being effectively managed and contributing to the delivery of local policing outcomes. This was identified as a key area for development in the improvement agenda; however, our recent work highlights that there has not been any significant improvement in the authority’s oversight of the force’s partnership work.
30. The authority included an action in their schedule of tasks to obtain a report from the force on effective partnership working and community leadership activities. This document was also to incorporate information on current partnership and framework contract arrangements. A target date of December 2011 was set for receipt of the report. The force’s report has not yet been prepared. There is no evidence of authority members or the authority office taking any proactive measures to seek its completion. The authority office has a responsibility to ensure that the force provides requested reports to the authority’s committees in a timely manner.
31. The approach to force engagement in the development of Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) was reported to the June 2011 meeting of the Community and Citizen Engagement Committee. It was agreed that reports on individual SOAs would be considered by the Strategic Planning and Performance Committee; however, these have also been reported to the Community and Citizen Engagement Committee. As yet, only the SOAs for North Lanarkshire and Inverclyde have been considered.
Community engagement
32. The Accounts Commission’s findings highlighted that authority members had a good understanding of issues facing their local communities but that the authority lacked a strategic approach to exercising its community engagement role. It was recommended that the authority consider how it can adopt a more strategic and systematic approach to understanding the needs of communities served by Strathclyde Police. The authority’s oversight of force community engagement has improved. Further work is required, however, to strengthen the authority’s own community engagement.
33. The Community and Citizen Engagement Committee was set up in April 2011 and first met in June 2011. The remit of this committee includes scrutinising and assessing engagement between Strathclyde Police and the local communities it serves, and monitoring any formal or informal consultation undertaken by Strathclyde Police with local communities. The committee has considered a number of reports from the force on community engagement. These include the force’s public consultation and community engagement process and its approach to community consultation through digital media.
34. The authority’s schedule of tasks included an action to evaluate the requirement for direct community consultation to address the authority’s reliance on the force for information on the communities it serves. Direct community consultation has not been undertaken. The Strategic Planning and Performance Committee agreed in April 2012 not to proceed with this due to the lack of time available to complete this activity before implementation of the single police force.
Force improvement activity and performance reporting
35. The Accounts Commission found that the authority did not actively seek out reports of improvement activity undertaken by the force and was not playing an active part in identifying and prioritising improvement areas within the force. The improvement agenda from the joint Best Value Audit and Inspection identified this as an important development area for the authority. Our recent work highlights that the authority has taken a more proactive approach to monitoring performance and obtaining information on force improvement activity. This has led to greater challenge of the force by members. 
36. The remit of the Strategic Planning and Performance Committee includes closely monitoring force performance through receiving regular update and assessment reports. The committee has received a range of performance reports, since it was set up in April 2011, including reports produced by the authority’s policy and performance officer. These are designed to draw members’ attention to certain areas of force improvement activity, including:
•	Strathclyde Police performance assessment from 2010/11 Scottish Policing Performance Framework.
•	HMICS annual report 2010/11 – Strathclyde Police Force commentary.
•	Fixed penalty notices compliance rates.
37. The reports prepared by the policy and performance officer have prompted members to challenge the force on specific issues and on occasion request further information. Examples include:
•	requesting further information on the compliance rate for fixed penalty notices and enforcement policies applied
•	asking for updates on work to improve fixed penalty notice compliance
•	requesting more detailed information on the force’s recency – frequency – gravity analysis.
Discussions with members and observation of authority meetings have also confirmed that members are proactive in challenging the force for more information where they do not think sufficient detail has been provided.
38. The authority has updated its local code of corporate governance. The draft code was discussed at the November 2011 meeting of the Audit, Governance and Risk Committee and the final version was agreed at the committee’s February 2012 meeting. It has not been considered by the full authority. The code sets out how the authority will address its principles of good governance and clearly outlines the evidence from the force and authority that these aims have been achieved. The code also details how improvement activity will be reported across the authority’s various committees. This is consistent with the terms of reference for each committee.
39. Reports on force change management were due to be presented to the authority’s budget working group but haven’t been discussed. There is evidence, however, of consideration of
change management reports at authority meetings. 
Monitoring of savings and efficiencies
40. The Accounts Commission identified a lack of monitoring by members of the achievement of savings and efficiencies within the force. This was highlighted as a significant area for development given the reductions in funding across the public sector. Our recent audit has found that the authority closely monitors the force’s use of resources and its position on savings and efficiencies at full authority meetings and through the budget working group.
41. Revenue budgetary reports for the force are considered at each authority meeting. These identify areas of underspend and overspend and forecast the likely year end position. Members have demonstrated a willingness to query certain elements of spend and request further detail from the force’s director of finance. The 2012/13 revenue budget strategy for the force was agreed at the February 2012 meeting of the authority. This included consideration of the proposed efficiencies and quantified savings and the financial implications of the move to a single police force in April 2013. The force’s capital programme for 2012/13 was approved at the April 2012 authority meeting. There was significant challenge by members on the appropriateness of certain elements of spend during discussion of the capital programme.
42. The authority’s budget working group meets twice a year to consider the force’s budget. Its membership includes all 34 authority members. Items considered by the group have included:
•	annual revenue budget strategy
•	medium-term financial strategy
•	procurement process for cleaning and janitorial services.
43. The authority’s schedule of tasks set out an action to review the terms of reference of the budget working group and make a proposal to the authority for enhancements to cover reform and change matters. The results of the review were to be reported to the August 2011 meeting of the authority. The budget working group does not have terms of reference.  
Authority office
The role of the authority’s support function is still not fully understood by all authority members. There is limited evidence that the chief executive is being held to account for the performance of the authority office or delivery of the improvement agenda. While there have been some improvements in monitoring the cost of the authority office, there has been limited work undertaken in determining its effectiveness. Business arrangements for the authority’s new governance structure need to be fine-tuned to avoid duplication across committee agendas. 
Role of the authority office
44. The Accounts Commission made the point, in their findings from the joint Best Value Audit and Inspection, that the authority was not getting sufficient value from its support function. To address this, the authority needed to be clearer about what professional support it required to allow it to exercise its governance role more effectively and to support scrutiny of the performance of the police force. Our recent work found that authority members remain unclear on the role of the police authority office.
45. In response to the Commission findings, the authority agreed to produce and distribute information on the role of the authority office. A target date of December 2011 was set in the authority’s schedule of tasks for completion of this action. This has not been fully completed.
46. The induction pack distributed to members in May 2012 contains information on the purpose of the authority office and authority staff. This includes job descriptions for the 11 staff employed by the authority. This information is, however, under review due to the ongoing job evaluation of authority office staff. The guidance has not yet been shared with all the authority’s stakeholders.
47. It is apparent, from interviews with authority members, that there is a lack of clarity over the role of the authority office. Members are still not clear about what they expect from the authority office and its staff. This is a significant issue as a review of the staffing structure of the authority office is in progress and members have a key role in deciding what the structure should look like.
Cost and effectiveness
48. The Accounts Commission’s findings highlighted that the authority is responsible for ensuring that the support function is effective and provides value for money. The authority has improved its arrangements for monitoring the cost of the authority office; however, it could do more to monitor its effectiveness.
49. The chief executive’s review of the authority, initiated in March 2010, recommended that the staffing structure of the authority office be reviewed to ensure it is fit for purpose and supports best value. A job evaluation for all authority office staff, carried out by force HR, to consider their roles and responsibilities was to be carried out at the same time. It was originally proposed that the recommendations of the staff review and job evaluation be reported to the October 2011 authority meeting. This deadline was then extended to March 2012 in the schedule of tasks.
50. The staff review and job evaluation remain outstanding. The chief executive reported to the March 2012 management subcommittee that these would continue into the summer due to lack of capacity of the force’s HR evaluation team. A deadline has not been set for completion of these processes and reporting of the results to the authority. The staff review and job evaluation were first proposed over two years ago and the continuing delay in their completion could adversely affect staff morale. The review of the authority office’s staffing structure is not reliant on completion of the job evaluation and could have been progressed while the job evaluation remained ongoing.
51. The development of an authority end-of-year report to members highlighting progress and improvements has been included in the schedule of tasks. This was to be prepared by the authority office and presented to the March 2012 authority meeting. The end-of-year report has yet to be completed. A revised deadline of the August 2012 authority meeting has been set. It would have been useful if this report had been available to new members when they first joined the authority to aid their understanding of the work carried out by the authority and how it supports best value.
52. A review of the authority office budget has been completed by the chief executive and a service level agreement finalised with Glasgow City Council for the services and facilities the council provides to the authority. These include:
•	treasury services
•	accommodation and utilities
•	information and communications technology
•	facilities management and security.  
The service level agreement was approved by members at the August 2011 authority meeting. The cost for 2011/12 was £400,000.
53. The overall position of the police authority office budget was first reported at the August 2011 authority meeting and has been presented at all subsequent meetings. The budget is considered in more detail at meetings of the management subcommittee. It is analysed line-by-line by the management subcommittee, with variances examined and explanations provided. 
Member training and development
54. The Accounts Commission found that the authority needed to strengthen member training and development. This was to focus on improving member understanding of their roles and responsibilities to give them greater confidence in holding the chief constable to account. Our recent work has found that the authority has made some progress, including agreeing a member training framework and implementing an induction programme for new members. However, providing adequate training to members is a fundamental role of a joint police board.
55. A member training framework was agreed at the June 2011 authority meeting. This sets out the training to be provided to new members within four months of their appointment to the authority. It was agreed that more comprehensive training would follow the induction training period. This would encourage continuous development by addressing gaps in knowledge identified by members through training needs assessments and providing the training required to chair committees and lead on working groups or special area interest portfolios. 
56. A draft induction training plan was agreed by members at the April 2012 authority meeting. This mirrors the content of the member training framework. It was also agreed at
this meeting that a package of induction information would be provided to members in advance of the first meeting of the newly constituted authority.
57. The induction handbook was distributed to members prior to the June 2012 authority meeting. It is a comprehensive document and includes information on the role of members, committees and the police authority office. This has been supplemented with training days,
held on 14 and 26 June 2012, covering a number of topics such as the authority governance and committee structure, finance and resources, and planning and performance. The training days have not been well attended. Fourteen of the 34 members attended on 14 June and 11 members attended on 26 June. Alternative methods of delivering the training, such as short sessions after authority meetings, should be considered to improve attendances.  
58. Details of the comprehensive training to follow the induction period are still to be confirmed. This will be driven by the requirements of members. In the past, some individuals have received training specific to their role. For example, members of the Audit, Governance and Risk Committee received audit training from CIPFA.
Appraisal of the chief executive
59. The Accounts Commission emphasised, in their findings, that the authority is responsible for ensuring that the support function is effective and provides value for money. This means the authority should monitor the support function’s progress and hold the chief executive to account for its performance and for delivery of improvements within agreed timescales. Our recent work has found limited evidence that the chief executive is being held to account for the performance of the authority office or delivery of the improvement agenda.
60. We would expect the convener of the authority to conduct regular performance appraisals of the chief executive. The previous convener confirmed that this had not happened. Another means by which the authority can hold the chief executive to account is through scrutiny of progress against the Best Value Audit and Inspection improvement agenda. The schedule of tasks, to address the improvement agenda, was last considered by the full authority in October 2011 and the management subcommittee in December 2011. Since then, there has been no opportunity for members to review progress and hold the chief executive to account for improvements not completed or deadlines missed.
Business arrangements
61. The Accounts Commission’s findings highlighted the need for the authority to improve its oversight and scrutiny function. The new committees for strategic planning and performance, and community and citizen engagement were identified as being key to developing the expertise of authority members and allowing them to focus on key areas. Business arrangements for the authority’s new governance structure still need fine-tuning to avoid duplication across committee agendas.
62. The new committees have improved the authority’s oversight and scrutiny of strategic policing and performance issues; however, there is evidence of duplication in agenda items. Instances have been noted of the same papers being considered by a number of committees. For example, reports on force engagement in SOAs have been presented to both the Strategic Planning and Performance, and Community and Citizen Engagement Committees. It is acknowledged that the new governance structure is still bedding in; however, the terms of reference of the new committees and how they are working in practice should be reviewed to avoid any duplication. This would ensure that the best use is made of members’ time.
63. There have been instances where key reports have been presented as appendices rather than stand-alone agenda items. The management subcommittee is a particular example of this. Significant papers including the police authority office budget and details of the chief constable’s performance-related pay scheme were included as annexes to the management subcommittee update paper. There is a risk that the inclusion of these items as appendices means they are not sufficiently scrutinised by members.
Appendix 1. 
Progress in implementing improvement actions
Issue	Source	Reported position	Target completion	Progress	
1. The Police Authority should work jointly with Strathclyde Police to develop a long-term joint vision and delivery strategies focused on 2020 and beyond.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	February 2011	Not implemented. Little evidence that the authority has had active involvement in the development of a joint vision for policing.	
2. Develop a shared vision for policing. Using the existing vision as a starting point, engage with the authority through the Strategic Planning and Performance Committee to review and thereafter restate a vision which reflects the views of the communities.	Schedule of tasks 2011	Ongoing	February 2012	Not implemented. As above.	
3. Develop joint delivery strategies with the force, with a clear view of supporting resource requirements and likely outcomes.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	February 2011	Not implemented. No evidence of joint strategies being developed. Force rejected proposal to develop a joint equality and diversity strategy.	
4. Review and revise the Scheme of Functions Delegated to Officers and move forward with the Special Interest Area (SIA) scheme.  
Set out and distribute information on the purpose and function of the police authority office. Develop master document explaining function, role, and responsibilities to clarify matters for the force and general corporate use. Refine and promote to partners, stakeholders, and the community.	Schedule of tasks 2011	Ongoing	January 2012	Partially implemented. Review of authority’s scheme of delegated authority still to be completed.
SIA scheme rolled out but member involvement in scheme has been limited.
Purpose and function of authority office outlined in induction pack for new members but has not been promoted to all stakeholders.	
5. The Audit and Risk Committee to become more risk focused and led. The Corporate Risk Register to be jointly owned by the police authority and force and be developed both to support operational delivery and with a view to focusing the authority’s scrutiny functions and commissioning of specific reviews.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	February 2011	Implemented. Terms of reference for Audit, Governance and Risk Committee adjusted to reflect a greater focus on risk. Strathclyde Police’s corporate risk register considered at meetings of the Audit, Governance and Risk Committee.	
6. The Police Authority Full Committee remains as currently constituted.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	February 2011	Implemented. The current composition of 34 members has been retained.	
7. The police authority committees, subcommittees and working groups/task and finish groups be changed and constituted as specified.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	April 2011	Implemented. New terms of reference agreed by authority in February 2011. Composition of new committees agreed in April 2011.	
8. Review the current systems and processes relating to approval of minutes; delegations of authority; police authority budget and management controls; the role of committee pre-agenda meetings; and wider information-sharing arrangements.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Ongoing	August 2011	Partially implemented. Authority’s scheme of delegated authority is in the process of being revised by the deputy chief executive. All other actions complete.	
9. The authority should review the reports that it currently receives from the force in support of its scrutiny function. It should also seek to commission specific reviews of police capabilities and areas of business delivery where it feels further scrutiny is warranted.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	April 2011	Implemented. Evidence that the authority’s various committees have reviewed reports received and sought further information where required.	
10. The force to provide the authority with a report on effective partnership working and its community leadership activity.  
The force to provide the authority with a report on all community consultation and engagement activities.  
The Local Code of Corporate Governance to be agreed.  
Enhance the change management and longer-term planning aspect of force reporting through the budget working group and at full authority meetings. Police authority office to review the terms of reference of the budget working group and make a formal proposal to the police authority for enhancements to cover reform and change matters.	Schedule of tasks 2011	Ongoing	December 2011	Partially implemented. Force report on effective partnership working and community leadership activity not prepared.
Local Code of Corporate Governance agreed at February 2012 meeting of Audit, Governance and Risk Committee.
The terms of reference of the budget working group have not yet been reviewed.	
11. Chief executive to negotiate and specify service level agreements and service standards with the appropriate corporate service providers.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	August 2011	Implemented. Service level agreement with Glasgow City Council agreed at August 2011 meeting of authority.	
12. The treasury management function should continue to be procured as it is currently but the chief executive should set out a clear business requirement and specify service delivery in more detail.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	August 2011	Implemented. Treasury management function forms part of service level agreement with Glasgow City Council agreed by members at August 2011 meeting of authority.	
13. Scrutiny of the force’s community planning activity should be developed with SOAs requiring the approval of the board. Performance reports on the development of SOAs and progress being made by the force toward SOA objectives are to be received by the authority.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	August 2011
	Partially implemented. Approach to force engagement in development of SOAs reported to June 2011 Community and Citizen Engagement Committee. Agreed that reports on SOAs would be considered by the Strategic, Planning and Performance Committee but only North Lanarkshire and Inverclyde considered to date.	
14. Consider and develop in tandem with the force, agreed improvements in strategic planning and performance. This will include SOA reporting.  	Schedule of tasks 2011	Complete	August 2011	Partially implemented. As above.	
15. Police engagement and reporting to members to be more properly formalised at the local level and a member special interest area scheme to be implemented.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	July 2011	Partially implemented. Member special interest area scheme and member representatives agreed by authority in February 2011 and April 2011 respectively. Member information seminar held in September 2011. Member involvement in scheme has been limited.	
16. Chief executive to further review Continuous Professional Development (CPD) and training requirements for members and staff, in tandem with the force and the Scottish Police Conveners Forum, with a view to generating a suitable training, development and education framework.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	June 2011	Implemented. Member training framework agreed at June 2011 authority meeting.  
	
17. Develop a bespoke member-training framework.
Develop a member-training plan to meet any immediate training requirements and member’s CPD needs post-May 12.
Review documentation specifying member roles and responsibilities and ratify, adjust and highlight as appropriate. Distribute to members and force. 	Schedule of tasks 2011	Ongoing	February 2012	Implemented. Induction handbook distributed to members prior to June 2012 authority meeting.
Induction handbook contains details of member roles and responsibilities and has been distributed to the force via the chief constable’s executive support liaison office.	
18. Chief executive to further review the staff structure of the police authority with respect to supporting the further improvements in the effective operation of the authority in fulfilling its statutory commitments.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Ongoing	October 2011	Not implemented. Staff review and job evaluation to continue into summer. No deadline set for completion. 
	
19. Authority office staff review and job evaluation.	Schedule of tasks 2011	Ongoing	March 2012	Not implemented. Staff review and job evaluation to continue into summer. No deadline set for completion. 	
20. Chief executive to review the police authority budget and associated management systems and processes to improve financial management and probity; an appropriate efficiency and savings target should be established.	Chief executive’s review 2010	Complete	October 2011	Implemented. Review of police authority budget complete. Authority office budget reported to August 2011 authority meeting and all subsequent meetings. Management subcommittee considers budget in more detail.	
21. Police authority office budget to be fully baselined and reported on at Management Committee meetings.
Develop an authority end-of-year report to the authority members highlighting progress and improvements. This will allow a determination of value-added,
best value and improvements.	Schedule of tasks 2011	Ongoing	March 2012	Partially implemented. Authority office budget baselined and reported at management subcommittee meetings.  
Authority end-of-year report not yet prepared.	
22. Police authority to participate in equalities and diversity workstream.
Member SIA scheme portfolio holder to be engaged in work.
Member equality, diversity and human rights training to be delivered for all members.
Human Resources Committee to receive an initial report on equality, diversity and human rights and biannually thereafter.	Schedule of tasks 2011	Ongoing	April 2012	Partially implemented. Authority’s policy and performance officer and diversity, equality and human rights portfolio lead actively engaged with force in diversity and equality activity.
Member diversity, equality and human rights training still to be delivered.
HR Committee approved diversity, equality and dignity in employment policy in August 2011. Biannual reporting agreed.	
23. Continue to implement the agreed improvements under the review of the authority. Report at full authority meetings as implementation progresses.
Report completion of implementation of recommendations.	Schedule of tasks 2011	Ongoing	February 2012	Not implemented. Last full update of progress against chief executive’s recommendations was at August 2011 authority meeting.
Report on completion of implementation of recommendations has not been prepared.