PDR Making it Count 2015

Transcription

1 PDR Making it Count 2015 Assessing Performance April 2015 V.1

2 Copyright College of Policing Ltd (2015) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, amended, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the College of Policing or its representative. For additional copies, or to enquire about the content of the document, please contact Examinations and Assessment on For copyright specific enquiries, please telephone the College of Policing Library on Version 1.0 Page 2 of 30 College of Policing 2015

3 1. Executive Summary This document is in two parts as is designed primarily for managers who will implement the PDR model within a force. Part One sets out the main changes to the PDR and Part Two provides guidance on the PDR process itself. Whilst this document is for managers, it should also be available to all members of staff to assist them understand and have ownership of their own PDR. It builds on previous PDR guidance 1 and discusses the impact of new Police Regulations and Determinations linking the annual assessment of performance of a police officer directly to progression through the pay scale. Whilst these changes only affect police officers, the model and its guidance is relevant to managing the performance of all staff. It should be noted that whilst the PDR is designed to assess performance, it is intended that should the model to assess competence be adopted (piloted in 2015), both processes will be combined into a single assessment in those years where both apply. New guidance will be issued at that time. It is accepted that the visual look of a PDR will differ from force to force, but each should incorporate the same constituent parts and use the Assumption of Competence model and Policing Professional Framework (PPF) to assess role requirements and personal qualities. This will provide the consistency and validity required for ethical evaluation and provide reassurance to those being assessed that the process is open and fair. Where a force retains or develops its own set of behavioural indicators, these should be fully mapped across to the PPF to ensure that officers are being assessed to the same standard nationally. As part of the model, national standards on assessing performance have been published and line managers must be trained in the use of these standards before they conduct an assessment. The Code of Ethics, published by the College of Policing provides a guide to the principles that every member of the policing profession of England and Wales is expected to uphold and the standards of behaviour they are expected to meet. The Code is intended to be used on a day-to-day basis to guide behaviour and decision-making and should be considered within the PDR as part of the decision making process. This applies not just to line managers in how they conduct the assessment, but by individuals as to the integrity and relevance of the evidence they submit. 1 PDR Making it Count April

4 Part One 1. Key Changes to the PDR The most significant change to the PDR is the linkage of a police officer s progression through the relevant pay scale to a grading of satisfactory in the annual Performance Development Review (PDR). All forces can deliver local training on the PDR process, but to support line managers in making valid and reliable assessments on performance, the College of Policing has introduced a set of minimum national standards. The national standards are set out in the Police Sector Standard for the training of Assessors and a supporting document that contextualises these standards into the PDR process. Trainer and student notes on the national assessment process are available via the Managed Learning Environment. These national standards should be incorporated into local training on the PDR / performance assessment process used within each force. Adoption of the standards will provide reassurance to officers that assessment of performance is both valid and reliable and ensure greater consistency across forces. It will be for forces to decide how the national standards will be implemented, how training is delivered and how any locally developed quality assurance measures on training and PDR outcomes are monitored. The regulatory change directly affects the ranks of Constable to Chief Inspector (and the line managers who assess them) but the national standards of assessing performance, should be regarded as appropriate for performance assessment across all ranks and grades. The new PDR process will be introduced for the rank of Sergeant to Chief Inspector on 1 st April It will be introduced for Constables on 1 st April Line managers must be trained to assess to a national standard before the mid-year review or mid-year point, particularly where the assessment is linked to progression through the pay scale. 1.1 Anniversary of Pay Increment The change to the process and links to pay progression may alter the timing of the PDR year (cycle) but it is for each for force to decide how they align their PDR process to an increment date. Financial Year based assessment A force may decide to retain alignment of the PDR as a key part of the annual performance cycle, the Crime Plan or other business planning. It is also recognised that there may be significant costs to forces in changing e based Version 1.0 Page 4 of 30 College of Policing 2015

5 PDR s. It has also been argued that retention of all assessments at the same time allows for consistent and fair reviews to be conducted by comparing performance of all officers and staff as part of a peer review. Anniversary of Reckonable Service Forces may consider aligning the performance assessment date (PDR completion date) with the reckonable service date. It is suggested that this would avoid the negative consequences of PDRs and pay decisions being taken at different times. For example, if the PDR and pay decision do not take place at the same time, then individuals who are considered to be not performing at the time of PDR, but who, responding to the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure (UPP) intervention are clearly performing at the time of the pay increase, will not receive an increment. This may take away the incentive to improve performance. Conversely, if an officer is deemed to be performing at the PDR review, but is not performing by the time of the pay increment, then he/she would still receive an increment. This may appear to be unfair to individuals involved and there is a risk that those denied an increment that is due in July, but based on evidence gathered in, say, January, may challenge the decision, especially if they have successfully moved off UPP and been clearly seen to be performing well. This approach may also avoid the annual disruption to ongoing business as all PDR s are completed by the same date. Irrespective of which model used, officers must progress through the pay scale at the anniversary of their appointment or promotion. 1.2 National PDR A national PDR form is not being proposed or developed by the College of Policing but the assessment process undertaken by forces should be the same in terms of the component parts and the assessment process. The minimum national standards by which performance in the role and the supporting behaviours should be assessed, are those described in the Policing Professional Framework (PPF). In July 2014, Chief Constables Council agreed that each force would ensure that an appraisal system is in place that has the following key elements: A behavioural Competency Framework strongly recommended that all forces use the Policing Professional Framework (PPF) An element of Continuing Professional Development A method for confirming satisfactory performance on an annual basis. In the absence of a PDR or other suitable assessment process which meets national performance standards and national standards of assessment set by the College of Policing, an officer s performance will be assumed to be satisfactory. 5

6 Forces will also need to satisfy themselves that line managers are able to assess their staff. In the absence of trained line managers, officers will be assumed to be competent and automatically progress to the next pay point. Where a force decides to adopt an assessment process not based on the PPF, then to ensure fairness, forces will be expected to map across to their own assessment process, the generic role profile, personal qualities of the PPF and the national assessment standards. Assessments conducted outside of the national assessment standards could lead to allegations of unfairness of process and subsequent challenge if officers in other forces are subject to differing standards. In addition, forces seeking to devise their own assessment must ensure that as a minimum, the process includes the following; Administrative details SMART 2 Objectives Development Plan (when required) Review meetings Assessment of evidence on performance and role development Grading mechanism 1.3 Forced Distribution model The College of Policing has decided that forced distribution should not be used, but this is not mandated. Should a force decide unilaterally to implement its use, then in line with the PNB agreement (July 2014), placing an officer in the bottom 10% of the distribution is not of itself, reason to withhold pay progression, nor will it result in the automatic denial of incremental process. The impact of this is that an individual can only be denied incremental progress if he/she is assessed as not meeting the standards in terms of performance and as a result is within Stage 1 or 2 of the Unsatisfactory Performance procedure. It is possible that officers assessed as being in the bottom 10% will be achieving all the performance standards required and will be an effective member of the service. 1.4 Unsatisfactory Performance. In line with the general principle of No Surprises within a PDR, an individual should not be at risk of denial of progression through the pay scale without being formally told that their performance is less than satisfactory and as a result they are already within formal Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures (UPP). Where the decision is to withhold progression through the pay scale, the officer must be supported through action plans within UPP. Although an officer may Version 2 Specific, 1.0 Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely Page 6 of 30 College of Policing 2015

7 satisfactorily respond to a development plan within a short period, performance must be assessed over the 12 months. Officers will only be reassessed using the PDR for pay progression purposes at the next PDR / Assessment anniversary. However, if implemented, should the officer fail a different part of the assessment at the Threshold and Advanced test points (e.g. the competence assessment process) then he / she is to be allowed to re-sit that element as soon as possible, in accordance with the PNB Agreement July Links to Assessing Competence The College of Policing is about to conduct a trial in the assessment of competence at pay point 4 and 7 in the core roles undertaken by police officers. Initially this will be limited to the rank of Constable but will eventually be applicable to all other ranks up to and including Chief Superintendent. It is important to note that whilst the evidence for the assessment of competence and of performance is likely to be drawn from the same source, the PDR is not the main vehicle by which an assessment of competence will be made. Additional evidence, solely relevant to the proposed Foundation and Advanced threshold assessments will be required at key milestones in an officer s career. It is envisaged that subject to successful implementation of the Assessing Competence model, both performance and competence will be assessed in a single combined process which may replace or enhance the PDR. Further information on the Assessment of Competence trial is available on the College of Policing website Defining & Assessing Competence. Whilst the aims and evidential requirements between competence and performance assessments are different, the national standards on how assessments will be conducted are the same. 1.6 Continuous Professional Development The College of Policing will in due course require all officers and staff to engage in Continuous Professional Development (CPD) but equally, it is aware of the pressure on officers and staff to undertake additional training and development. Mandated Training Mandated training will initially be limited to the Assessing Competence model but once developed, will become part of the annual PDR. Additional guidance will be issued to all forces when mandated learning is to be issued. The College of Policing will seek to minimise the number of requests for mandatory training. Chief Officers may locally mandate additional areas of training which in their view is relevant to the efficient running of the force. Each force should consider how mandated training is to be reflected in their PDR. As general 7

8 guidance, any evidence should reflect more than attendance or completion of the training. It should also show how the training has been applied in the workplace or evidenced by demonstration of understanding through professional discussion etc. The CPD element provides individuals an opportunity to evidence areas of personal development in their role. Individuals and line managers must be open to considering alternative opportunities that would assist in such development. Annex A provides some suggestions as to what this might look like but it is important that the individual takes the lead on which part of their role they wish to develop. The line manager must ensure that the area links to the policing role and that it is attainable within the time and resource requirements available. Line managers should always look to be supportive in reasonable requests. Additionally, the line manager may recognise a performance gap and suggest a focus in a particular area. This can if necessary, be mandated by way of an SMART objective. 1.7 Grading Matrix Winsor recommended a simple grading mechanism of unsatisfactory contribution, satisfactory contribution, and highly effective contribution. The grading matrix at Annex B has been successfully used with a force 3 and provides for a more nuanced approach in the assessment process. However, it is for Chief Officers to determine the mechanism that best suits their appraisal process, but the 3 levels above must be regarded as the minimum standard. The grading matrix is to be used primarily at the end of the PDR year to reflect the level of performance across the year. The line manager, using the marking grid, may wish to give an interim grading at the end of any meeting but this is for information only and is not recorded. It simply allows staff members to understand their current level of performance and consider the nature and pace of their development needs. Only at the end of the PDR year should a formal grading be recorded. 1.8 Assumption of Satisfactory Performance The model is based on an Assumption of satisfactory performance 4 in that it recognises that the majority of officers, once trained and experienced, usually perform their role to a satisfactory standard. The process requires both the line manager and individual to contribute limited but relevant evidence of performance against the role profile, personal qualities, mandated training, role related development and the agreed objectives. 3 Thames Valley Police 4 The model was originally entitled Assumption of Competence. This was changed to prevent confusion with the Version trial of the 1.0 Assumption of Competence Threshold Test. Page 8 of 30 College of Policing 2015

9 Satisfactory performance will vary and be dependent on the individual role, rank or grade and level of experience. Line managers may consider the following as an exemplar but must defer to the policy and guidance in use in their own force. Overall Supervisors Rating Guide ACHIEVED Meets demands and accountabilities of role. Consistent and thoroughly proficient performer. Displays high standards of behaviour and professionalism. Develops self through CPD record. Or, someone new in post who is working towards full competence and is meeting all development needs without the requirement of an action plan. Leads the way in personal standards of integrity and behaviour. Promotes coaching within the team and encourages development. Maintains CPD record to demonstrate knowledge and practice is current. Demonstrates the Force values and uses PDR to recognise achievement and challenge poor performance and attendance. ACHIEVED Rating Executive (ACPO/Force Command Team) 5/7 competency boxes rated Achieved; 4 objectives at least 3 rated Achieved Senior Manager (Ch Supt/Supt/BB5) 4/6 competency boxes rated Achieved; 4 objectives at least 3 rated Achieved Middle Manager (Ch Inspector/Inspector/BB4) 4/6 competency boxes rated Achieved; 4 objectives at least 3 rated Achieved Supervisory Manager (Sgt/BB3) 2/3 competency boxes rated Achieved; 2 objectives both rated Achieved Practitioner (PC/BB3/BB2/BB1) 2/3 competency boxes rated Achieved 1.9. Fitness and Attendance Management Standards It is important to note that attainment or otherwise of the standards within Attendance Management and Officer Fitness policies may be included in the criteria for assessing performance. However this is not mandated and where a Chief Officer implements one or both of these criteria within a force PDR, this must be subject to an equalities impact assessment. There are equality based issues to consider and where relevant must be justified before these two areas are used to assess performance. A copy of the College of Policing EIA on the PDR is published on the College website and provides further information. Where fitness testing is used as an assessment criteria, officers who fail to attain the standard should be supported and in line with the College of Policing fitness guidance have a minimum of three attempts before under performance policies are considered. The fitness test discriminates against women and older members of staff. The justification for implementing fitness testing only applies to roles that require Personal Safety Training (PST). The justification does not extend to holders of other posts who may wish to undertake the fitness test for personal reasons but who are not required to perform PST in their role. 9

10 Women and older members of staff who are not required to undertake PST but who are subject to a disadvantage because of a failure to meet the fitness test standard may have a claim of unlawful indirect sex or age discrimination. In these circumstances a force could not rely on the equalities related justification set out in the job related fitness guidelines. Part Two 2.1 The PDR Process Whilst the majority of staff will be assessed under an assumption of satisfactory performance, four distinct groups sit outside the majority and for whom a higher level of evidence and management support will be required: i. New to Service, Rank, Role Where individuals are on a programme of role based learning (Initial Crime Investigators Development Programme (ICIDP), Financial Investigation course etc.) evidence captured within that process should be referenced by the individual and viewed by the line manager, but need not be replicated within the PDR. If relevant, evidence that supports a line manager s observation may be recorded in the PDR on the assessment page. This observation applies to all other material that may reflect good or developmental performance areas such as good work reports, commendations, case files etc. Whilst it is a matter for individual forces, it is bureaucratic to expect probationary officers and staff undergoing a formal probationary process to engage in a second process, where the same or similar skills are being recorded and evaluated. Amendments should be made to either process that enables the individual to work to one process which meets the needs of that individual and the force concerned. As roles within the service change, line managers may need to assess whether the change is so significant that an individual requires additional support to evidence how they have adapted to the parameters of their revised role. Staff who are newly promoted will be eligible for an increment 12 months after their promotion. As stated earlier in this document, there are benefits in aligning the PDR with the reckonable service date. If this were to be done, then those promoted would simply be assessed after 12 months, meaning they would have had adequate time in role to settle in. If, on the other hand, all assessments are done at a single point in year, then those promoted in year may have had only a few months in role. Should this be Version 1.0 Page 10 of 30 College of Policing 2015

11 the case then evidence must be reviewed allowing for performance in both ranks to be considered appropriately. ii. Excelling Performers (Non Fast Track) Where a line manager grades or anticipates grading a member of staff as an Excelling Performance, then they should provide detailed documentary evidence to support that grading. This should include relevant information as to how the individual has significantly developed within their role and where appropriate, evidence of how they may have gone on to develop in a higher role. Additionally the objectives agreed should also be of a standard that would reflect performance at this higher level and which goes beyond being slightly challenging. However, providing the core objectives have been attained, non-attainment of an additional or higher level objective(s) is not evidence of underperformance in the core role. Line managers may wish to comment on the outcome, but it should not be used as rationale to introduce under performance measures. Managers should look to understand why an additional or higher level objective has not been met and where appropriate, put in place a supportive development plan (see 6 below). iii. Low Performing staff Where a line manager determines at any time during the PDR year that an individual is likely to fall within the Not Achieved category, they must be proactive in attempting to redress the decline and not wait for a scheduled PDR meeting to address the issue. Where necessary, a fully documented development plan should be created (or updated if it already exists) so that both sides fully understand what action is required. It must be noted that an individual moving towards a grading of Not Achieved is not necessarily the start of UPP or Incapability Procedure for police staff. A member of staff may for a short period be perform below what is expected and prompt supportive action by the line manager may redress this drop in performance. There are however some generally well understood principles which apply in such circumstances: (a) the line manager must discuss any performance issue with the individual at the earliest opportunity and (b) the line manager should not accumulate a list of performance related concerns and wait until a scheduled review meeting to then discuss them. 11

12 However, where a low level of performance is protracted or likely to lead to a determination that pay progression is at risk, Stage One (or where appropriate Stage Two) of UPP must be used. Line managers may want to consider, with the consent of the individual, whether a relevant staff association / Union / Staff support Association could be approached to assist or advise on any underlying issue relevant to the group they represent. This may give a clearer understanding of issues pertinent to an individual s circumstances impacting on performance. Whilst staff associations will provide advice, line managers must not place such organisations into a position whereby they can no longer represent the individual. A list of useful contact is shown at Annex C iv. Career Development Where individuals are seeking advancement through promotion, temporary promotion, transfer or other career development opportunities, the line manager should consider agreeing to additional developmental objectives. These objectives should provide evidence for the anticipated role, that run alongside an individual s current core role or work based objectives. Such an agreement can best be reached through an open discussion between both as to management of career expectations and what supportive objectives could be created to assist these goals. However as previously stated non-attainment of a higher level of performance does not infer that the individual is not meeting a satisfactory standard for the core role. Line managers and individuals should develop a relationship whereby they can have an honest and frank discussion around career development and advancement. This is particularly relevant where promotion or temporary promotion is being sought. Line managers must manage the expectations of their staff taking into account personal ability, development needs and likely vacancies within a desired role. Police officers seeking promotion must meet the eligibility criteria prior to taking OSPRE part 1, or where recognised, can demonstrate competence in current rank to undertake step 1 or develop themselves to secure temporary promotion at step 4 of the National Police Promotion Framework. Lastly, the evidence of role related development should be referenced, particularly where temporary promotion, attachments, mentoring or Acting Up opportunities have been agreed to advance performance. This applies equally to police staff as police officers. Version 1.0 Page 12 of 30 College of Policing 2015

13 2.2. The Development Plan A development plan is not a censure of an individual but should be seen as the first line of management support to an individual. They should be used to support an individual with potential to achieve at a higher level as well as managing a dip in performance. As such they are generally short term and usually between the line manager and the individual. The process for the formal development for police officers is set out under the Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance Policy. For police staff, the Performance Management & Improvement Procedure will apply. Development plans are not required in every PDR nor are they required to cover every objective or performance issue. In many cases an honest discussion will be sufficient to address any performance related issues. A formal or documented development plan must be considered where individuals are within or likely to move to the Low Performer category and are unlikely, without more detailed support, to fully meet the competencies being assessed within their role. They must also be considered if they are requested by the individual as part of self-development. The development plan must be simple in construction, easy to read and cover the key issues What is to be achieved? A brief summary as to how it can be attained The timescale in which it should be met What will success look like? A development plan is a living document subject to regular, agreed amendment each time the line manager and individual come together to review progress and address development needs. Officers who do not improve within a development plan MUST be formally moved into UPP where they are at risk of not progressing through the pay range or their performance (outside of the pay issues) is such that a formal support structure is required. 2.3 PDR Meetings Initial Meeting The initial meeting should take place in the period immediately before the PDR year or cycle begins. This will allow for the preceding PDR to be closed down and any pay related assessment to be completed. At the meeting, both the line manager and individual should be prepared to discuss the role, how it can be developed and the evidence expected to allow a performance appraisal to take place. The CPD element should also be discussed 13

14 and agreed. Ideally whilst formal training is a key part of development, CPD should also allow the individual to develop within their role through experiential learning, mentoring and wider short term opportunities. SMART objectives will be set according to local policy but should incorporate a range of short, medium or long term objectives that stretch the individual. (See chapter 11 below). Whilst it is a matter for Chief Officers, it is usual for interim reviews to be conducted. As a minimum this should be at the mid-year point but may be quarterly or any other agreed schedule. The interim meeting provides an opportunity for both the line manager and individual to review progress, amend objectives and where relevant put into place development plans. Line managers are strongly encouraged to have ad hoc meetings with staff. These need not be the formal arrangements for mid-year or end of year reviews, but general discussions on how an individual is progressing. Any relevant information or evidence can then be recorded. Mid-Year Meetings Before the mid-year (and end of year) meeting the line manager should agree with the appraisee the evidence to be used in the assessment. The quantity of documents or source material will vary according to the individual being appraised, but it must be sufficient to allow a line manager to openly and ethically come to a decision whether they meet the required standard or not. Most mid-year review meetings will ideally be managed within 1-2 hours. This is not to say that meetings should be curtailed prematurely and managers should extend a meeting for as long as necessary. Further meetings can be arranged if necessary to address all of the issues they or the individual wish to discuss. Managers may also wish to set aside additional time to allow for a more detailed discussion of performance; a need for this may arise from circumstances particular to an individual, or from external circumstances impacting on that individual. Such action may help managers overcome a possible lack of understanding around activity, capability or personal issues affecting an individual s performance. End of Year Meeting The end of year meeting covers two separate areas. the end of that period of assessment and the overall end of year assessment and grading. Line managers should first deal with the end of period assessment in exactly the same way as the previous assessments. Once this is completed, then the overall end of year assessment can commence. Version 1.0 Page 14 of 30 College of Policing 2015

15 2.4 Setting the general grading score Line managers, in determining the end of year grade, will look at the recorded evidence on the role related development, mandated learning, personal qualities, attainment or otherwise of objectives and where appropriate, response to development plans. They will also consider their own personal observation as to how the individual performed their role. The line manager will then use the national assessment standards to assess the overall performance. Where pay progression is a relevant issue, the question for the line manger to consider is does the individual meet the minimum standard against the competencies? Whilst many officers will focus on the pay progression element, assessment within the PDR at any stage of an officer s career is equally important. Officers must provide suitable evidence for assessment each year. Lack of such evidence, unless outside of their control or reasonable explanation is likely to lead to a Not Achieved performance grade. Where an officer s performance and development is graded as Not Achieved, they will move to the 1 st stage of UPP. There is also a balance of responsibility in the recoding of evidence in that line managers should where appropriate add their own comments or evidence to PDR. In most cases this will be within the PDR of an individual they are managing, but may be an individual being managed by another supervisor. As with the progression through the pay points, the No Surprise criteria applies and an officer must be made aware that their performance is unsatisfactory before the end of year review. In general terms this will be addressed through the informal development plan for minor or short term issues or where appropriate, the officer will be being supported through UPP. 2.5 Appraisal for Pay Progression It is expected that all individuals meeting the required standard within their annual appraisal will progress to the next pay point on the anniversary of their appointment or promotion. Where an individual is not subject to an appraisal process they will be assumed to be competent and will automatically progress to the next pay point. Where an individual meets the satisfactory standard, but completion of an appraisal is unexpectedly delayed, progression to the next pay point must take place at the earliest opportunity and where relevant, be backdated to the pay progression point as set by the force. This also applies where following appeal against an appraisal grade, an individual is assessed as meeting the satisfactory grade. 15

16 Where completion of the PDR is delayed for a protracted period due to lack of managerial resources or results from an unexpected and ongoing significant policing event, an assumption of competence must be made in respect of that individual. Forces should, as a matter of good practice, publish in advance the relevant timetable against which performance is to be assessed. As a minimum this should include the commencement date, any fixed review dates, the end of appraisal period and the date by which the appraisal must be completed. In most appraisals (excepting where the individual is subject to UPP or awaiting an appeal) a PDR is complete once the line manager s decision has been reviewed and accepted by the 2 nd line manager or where used, a moderating panel. As a guide, the period between the end of year grading and formal completion of the appraisal process (the completion period) should be limited to a period of six to eight weeks. As a consequence it may be necessary for forces to identify and fast track those appraisals where pay progression is relevant. As previously stated, pay progression can only be withheld where an individual has previously been told that their performance was unsatisfactory, they have failed to respond to management support and as a result they are placed within UPP. Such a process is likely to have taken place over a period of time and evidence of continuing underperformance will have been documented to warrant referral to UPP. As such, it is recommended that placement of an individual into UPP, particularly towards the end of the appraisal year that is not supported by robust evidence, which results from a single event or the performance grade is disputed, should be reviewed by a senior manager within HR. Should the performance of an individual unexpectedly decline during the completion period and as a consequence that individual is then placed within UPP, a decision on whether pay progression is to be withheld must be referred to the senior management team. Consideration should also be given as to when the performance issue took place not just its impact. The end of year assessment is primarily based on the whole of the previous year s performance and the performance issue may be outside of that period but yet fall within the formal policy timetable. Such an unexpected departure from a satisfactory or higher performance grade is likely to be linked to a single one off event and other interventions such as Misconduct provisions are likely to be utilised. However, where in exceptional circumstances an issue is dealt with by way of Stage One (or where appropriate Version 1.0 Page 16 of 30 College of Policing 2015

17 Stage Two) of UPP, the action / development plan will apply to the forthcoming PDR year, not the PDR being reviewed. Where following a misconduct investigation a decision is made that misconduct is no longer appropriate and that performance should be dealt with by way of UPP, the action / development plan will apply to the PDR year where evidence is being gathered for assessment. UPP cannot be applied to a PDR year that is closed or in a case where an assessment has already been made but not yet finalised within the force policy. Legal advice based on the individual circumstances may be required but in all such cases where pay progression is withheld, it is advised that decisions and rationale are recorded. 2.6 Evidence of Performance The evidence of performance on which the annual assessment is based on; Role as described in the PPF (or similar) Personal Qualities attributed to the rank or grade as described in the PPF Role related learning or development Mandated learning (when introduced) Attainment of Objectives This evidential requirement applies equally to the general annual assessment as well as an assessment for progression to the next pay point Role The role requirements for officers are described within the Skills for Justice Policing Professional Framework (PPF) Officers should be assessed against the core competencies for the role. Forces may utilise their own core role descriptors but these must be mapped across to the PPF to ensure that nationally officers are being assessed against the same standards. As a minimum, officers should be assessed against the core functions of the role. Chief Officers may consider whether additional evidence is required to reflect against the specifics of a specialised post, but such evidence is not relevant to show competence against the core function of Constable, Sergeant and Inspector etc Personal Qualities The PPF Personal Qualities are banded according to rank or grade. Officers and staff must provide evidence against each of the qualities. In general terms this will 17

18 be a short statement and reference to the source document. This will vary according to the individual but may include letters of thanks, incident log, case file etc. Evidence from a 3 rd party, peer group, other supervisors or external stakeholders, including members of the public may also be referenced. Line managers must however make a professional judgement on the value and ethical origins of unsolicited comments from team members and members of the public particularly where supportive or negative bias is apparent within the comments. The Code of Ethics must be considered by both the individual and the line manager when addressing the value and origins of such comments. Unsolicited comments that would infer a breach of conduct or performance that would warrant further investigation must be dealt with in accordance with the relevant policy / guidelines Management Intervention Line managers are expected to intervene at an early stage where conduct, performance or attendance issues are apparent. Management action is not a disciplinary outcome but is considered to be part of the normal managerial responsibility of managers in the police service. Where it is appropriate a note of the issue should be recorded in the PDR together with any improvement plan Complaints Local Resolution The Police Reform Act 2002, Complaint Regulations and IPCC statutory guidance set out when complaints are suitable for Local Resolution and these procedures will continue to apply. It may however be appropriate for a manager to take management action as part of locally resolving a complaint. However this will not be considered as formal action and does not prevent a manager from making a note of the action taken and recording this in the PDR or equivalent, if appropriate Notice of Investigations The service of a notice under Regulation 15 Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 or similar notice to a member of staff regarding allegations should not be recorded in the PDR Formal Misconduct Where under any other policy an individual has recorded against them a finding, with or without a separate penalty (written warning or formal advice etc.), it is important that the individual is not then subject to a separate penalty. A finding against an individual or the evidence that supported that finding, should not appear in the PDR or be used as rationale for underperformance action. Version 1.0 Page 18 of 30 College of Policing 2015

19 2.7 Completion of Self-Assessment Record (CPD) Self-Assessment, which may be electronic or paper based, enables structured reflection on recent performance to identify what has gone well and what has been an area of challenge. Recording self-assessment evidence allows the individual to reflect on their experiential learning and allows the line manager the opportunity to consider appropriate forms of reward for success, as well as to address areas for further development. Additionally, establishing a record of assessment across the team may help the line manager identify areas for their own development in terms of addressing a team development need Appraisee Self-Assessment Evidence The self-assessment form (electronic or paper based) is completed by the appraisee as they identify suitable performance evidence across the year. This should be an ongoing process and not left to the period immediately before the appraisal meeting. Where an e PDR platform is available, line managers should check that data is being recorded at regular intervals. Evidence recorded over the year is a clearer indication of development than a memory exercise at the end of the year. Before the scheduled review meeting with a line manager, officers should reflect the evidence on which they believe best shows how they have performed and developed in the role. It is not necessary to provide all of the evidence recorded over the year merely evidence that will show how they have progressed against their agreed objectives areas of performance in the role attainment of the personal qualities attainment of mandated learning development within their role The self-assessment not only provides evidence of performance, but highlights areas for discussion to acknowledge good work, identify concerns or provide additional support for individual performance and development. In agreeing the evidential requirements with their line manager, an individual should ensure that sufficient evidence is captured that if relevant, also meets their career needs. This may be in excess of the line manager s requirements, who may wish to add their own evidence, but staff should accept that the onus for collecting information or evidence lies with them. Of necessity, individuals will always bring best evidence to the meeting but line managers should look within the role development to draw out any experiential 19

20 learning that may have originally caused the individual some concern. This is not to undermine the officer but to provide balance and / or identify further developmental areas. E.g. An officer may have had difficulties when giving evidence at a trial because of lack of knowledge, preparation, or court room skills. The learning from such events can in some circumstances be more developmental that direct teaching or mentoring. Providing the officer has learned from the experience this should be graded as a positive outcome by the line manager Line Manager Evidence After the meeting a short narrative statement is recorded by the line manager as to the key points discussed and their observations as to performance based on the role profile and the relevant personal qualities under the PPF. As a minimum, the statement should reflect success, barriers and if relevant, changes or improvements arising from a development plan. The individual must be given the opportunity to review and comment on this narrative statement. It is unlikely that a single adverse issue, dealt with by management intervention, would affect an overall grade marking. In most cases where an overall grade for the year was at risk, a more formal process would be expected to have been followed. However, where a line manager is considering such action they must evaluate the incident in terms of role profile and personal qualities, the outcome of the incident and the individual s response to it including any response to an improvement plan. Where necessary line managers should refer to the Code of Ethics and / or seek advice of the second line manager or HR manager. 2.8 PDR Objectives Work related and personal development objectives are of equal importance, and whilst forces have the discretion to mandate either or both within their PDR system, all objectives should be given the appropriate level of consideration and support. Objectives should clearly describe what an individual is expected to achieve but also provide the individual and any reviewer a clear understanding of how it will improve performance in the role or improve the development of the individual in any of the Personal Qualities that support the role profile. Objectives should not be performance targets related to percentages of crime reduction needed or number of arrests etc. People are selected in part because of their individual differences and also for the skills they bring to their role. Whilst objectives should be challenging, managers must also be cognisant of the person s ability to achieve them particularly where a common objective across a team or larger group is being considered. Version 1.0 Page 20 of 30 College of Policing 2015

21 Managers must reflect on the impact on that individual, and look to support the individual by amending objectives as personal and operational circumstances change Work related Objectives All members of staff should have work related objectives that support the force, command or team objective(s) and is within their role profile to complete. Care should be taken to ensure such objectives do not unintentionally drive inappropriate behaviour Personal development objectives Personal development objectives should be directed to improving performance in the role or development in any of the personal qualities that underpin that role Career development objectives As discussed above, individuals will often seek from their line manager development opportunities to support promotion or lateral development opportunities. Whilst managers should endeavour to provide such support, an open and frank discussion should first be conducted to establish, what skills, abilities and competencies the individual already possesses, what they require to achieve their goal, what is actually attainable taking into account likely vacancies, resources or opportunities within the force. Where activity to support the request can be agreed, it should be set out and monitored within an objective or series of objectives. Line managers need to ensure that options for development are open to all and individuals are not pre-selected or favoured as being suitable candidates. Even where staff cannot be supported with career development at that time, line managers may wish to consider longer term planning that would provide an individual with the necessary skills or evidence. Disputes over objectives will rarely arise if a clear explanation of the rationale and benefits is given. Problems may occur where timescales or opportunity to undertake the objective are not viewed by one side or the other as being appropriate. Line managers must also be cognisant of the level of challenge when agreeing objectives and ensure that an individual is not being unfairly treated. A balance needs to be struck between setting a range of challenging objectives for the individual whilst recognising that they should be equitable with those agreed for the peer group. Repeated setting of inappropriate, unattainable or high numbers of objectives may lead to criticism of the line manager and which may in turn be reflected in the line manager s appraisal. 21

22 Both the line manager and individual should make every effort to work through any difficulties including seeking advice when necessary. Where resolution cannot be obtained, the second line manager should be asked to mediate. Should the issue remain unresolved, formal processes may then be considered. 2.9 Assessment of Evidence Assessments of the evidence for performance will be made against the national standards for assessment (enter hyperlink). Line managers must be trained in their local PDR process, which will include the National Standards before they conduct an assessment and in particular, an assessment related to pay progression. In some cases formal training may be required, particularly where a line manager is new to role, but for many gaining an understanding of the principles will be sufficient. It is for forces to decide on how the standards are brought within current PDR training, how it is delivered. Having completed the training a line manager will be able to; 1. Explain the concept of work-based assessment, identify and apply the factors affecting the selection of the most appropriate assessment approach 2. Explain the role and responsibilities of an assessor 3. Identify the assessment principles that underpin effective work-based assessment 4. Identify the benefits of and apply the principles of holistic incident/work led assessment 5. Explain the stages of the assessment process, identifying flexibility in approach to address a range of assessment needs 6. Demonstrate an understanding of how to plan and implement assessment strategies to meet local, national or external requirements 7. Demonstrate the practical skills of conducting assessments and evaluating evidence to make assessment decisions 8. Explain and apply the principles and practices of standardising assessment to ensure quality standards are maintained Version 1.0 Page 22 of 30 College of Policing 2015