Is a Single Force the Only Option?
Colin Mair, Chief Executive, Improvement Service
The Consensus
• Scottish Government & Parliament have the
constitutional authority to shape policing in Scotland
• Basis for decision-making should be transparent and
accountable
• Police budgets will reduce in real terms
• We all want to maintain and improve outcomes
Options for What?
• Improving deployment of police resources to front line
policing despite budget reduction
• Rationalising/improving current ways of delivering
policing functions to ensure this is possible: T.O.M.
• Ensuring key measures of safety and security outcomes
continued to improve (and local partnerships that deliver
them work)
• Ensuring national policing functions are properly
governed and accountable nationally
• Ensuring local policing functions are properly governed
and accountable to local communities
The OBC
• No statement of purpose of policing (outcomes)
• No statement of national or local accountability
arrangements
• No baseline or organisational models of options
• Focus largely on ‘efficiency’ gains
The Core of the OBC
1. The analysis of T.O.M.’s and efficiencies: 5, 10 and 15
years
2. Linking realisation of efficiencies to structural options
3. OBC combines (1) and (2): depends on reliability of
both
Some Quotes from the OBC
On the T.O.M. Efficiencies
“In some limited cases the nature of the function and
level of information available allowed the team to rebuild
a function from the ‘bottom up’ and this provided a
relatively high confidence in the assessment of
efficiency. In other areas where complexity, scale and
limitations of data were significant factors. Efficiencies
were estimated and validated for reasonableness using
benchmark data.”
Some Quotes from the OBC
On Deliverability
“All of the options rely on significant change to deliver
the scale of efficiency that is likely to be required.
Payback time will be highly dependent on the availability
of funding as well as prioritisation and profiling of change
project alongside business as usual activity. In order to
better profile the cost of change and financial benefits
within the full programme, a further stage of more
detailed analysis will be conducted.”
Some Quotes from the OBC
On the Attribution of Costs and Benefits to Options
“To date detailed assessment of risk, sensitivity and
optimism bias for the cost and benefit profile has not
been undertaken.”
To Be Precise…Efficiencies and T.O.M.’s
• What percentage of the efficiencies attributed to T.O.M.’s
are evidence based and how much based on
‘benchmarks’?
• Which benchmarks used and how applied? (e.g. are they
achieved benchmarks or benchmarks projected in other
business cases?)
• Do any of the benchmarks derive from a context of
structural mergers? (e.g. ‘Quest in England does not)
The UK Conclusion
“The Government does not support the imposition of
structural changes on local forces which will be
seen by the public as creating vast and distant
conglomerations, weakening their capacity to
influence and hold to account those who keep them
safe. Scarce resources in challenging times need
to be focused on strengthening front line policing,
not bankrolling controversial mergers with little
public or political support.” (Home Office, June
2010).
To Be Precise: Cost and Benefits
of Structural Options
• How were costs and benefits attributed in the absence of
a baseline and models of each option?
• What percentage of cost and benefits were based on
analysis of actual evidence and what percentage by
judgement?
• If by judgement, whose judgement? How many
involved?
For Example: Outcome
Improvement (Table 5.3, P51)
• 8 Forces: 1.86 (limited) ---- Single Force: 8.4 (significant)
• Numbers but: who involved? How involved? Any critical
voices?
• Process for wider validation: ACPOS, etc.
For Example: Savings on Staff &
Supplies (5 years) (Tables 5.4 – 5.6)
• Officers:8 Forces: £36 million
• Staff: 8 Forces: £47 million
• Supplies: 8 Forces: £19 million
1 Force: £43 million
1 Force: £66 million
1 Force: £23 million
‘Always show your working’
So….
• All these are critical to business case: publish them
• Piles of tables dependent on assumptions: sensitivity
analysis on explicit assumptions
• 10 – 15 years projections & NPV dependent on 5 year
projections being accurate: add no further information
Financial Projections Across 5 Years
8 Forces (enhanced)
(000’s)
Regional Forces Single Force
(000’s)
(000’s)
Benefits
£315,287
£354,466
£390,050
Costs
£156,119
(£50 million)
£167,877
(£64 million)
£207,722
(£81 million)
Net
Benefit
£159,168
£186,589
£182,328
NB. Difference = 0.3% of base per annum
Reconstructing the OBC
• The ‘Sustainable Policing’ report identifies major
efficiency opportunities
• In the past 8 CC’s and Boards have not found it easy to
collaborate and share services
• Therefore: 1 Force is necessary to drive this through
• But: detailed evidence and analysis necessary to make
this secure
• But: outcomes, accountability and failure risk in mergers
End Points
• OBC establishes future detailed work on options
warranted: not a basis for final decision making
• There is not a credible case just now but ‘structural
bingo’ not sensible
• Factor back in outcomes and accountability (e.g. local
protection and resilience partnerships; composition of
board; local budget and plan approval)
• The Scottish Government preference is stated: should
be respected
• Positional bargaining
Mutual outcomes
POLICE REFORM PROGRAMME
DRAFT OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE
Ceci n’est pas une business case
Scottish Government
July 2011