22. First supplementary memorandum
submitted by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
THE ROLE
OF DETECTION
IN THE
REDUCTION OF
CRIME
1. A Balance of Priorities
(i) The issue of the detection rate for
crime and the level of effort that the police are putting into
improving it is rightly a cause for concern amongst victims of
crime, politicians, commentators and the public generally. People,
especially victims of crime, want to see justice done and offenders
brought to book for their crimes. However, even though this desire
is entirely justified, judging the performance of the police service
mainly on this criterion is to misunderstand the part that detection
of crime plays in the overall picture of police priorities. Nevertheless
the police service is committed to improve performance in this
area but not as the sole measure of police effectiveness.
(ii) For a number of years the Service has
been following a very clear remit from successive governments—to
reduce crime and criminal behaviour and to maintain public order.
This is seen as the top priority. To be able to achieve this priority
we have to be able to be effective at a range of tasks. For example,
we must:
— develop, effective intelligence systems
that allow us to see the picture of crime and criminality more
clearly so that we can;
— apply a range of policing measures,
including increased visible patrols, targeting of prolific offenders,
surveillance and detection, where they will disrupt crime most
effectively;
— work productively with a range of
other agencies to tackle the causes of crime; and
— communicate with people at a local
level to ensure that they have ownership and involvement in policing
issues in their neighbourhoods.
(iii) Crime has been consistently falling
since a peak in 1995 and we believe that it can fall still further,
but this will only happen when we can integrate and direct all
resources to best effect. Detection will be an integral part of
that process, but as we have shown it is part of a much bigger
picture of policing activity. An over emphasis on this measure
is therefore misleading and has the potential to skew policing
activity by encouraging effort on the more minor and simpler crimes,
such as low level shop lifting, rather than the more complex or
serious crimes such as series and organised crime. In measurement
terms detecting a minor crime counts as one detection as does
detecting one serious murder but clearly the input and impacts
are markedly different. Best results are achieved by a balance
of activity and the point is perhaps most clearly illustrated
by two examples:
— An active drug dealer has moved into
a neighbourhood and as a result a high level of burglaries and
street muggings are being committed to fund local addicts' habits.
We would argue that the most effective way of reducing crime would
be to focus on disrupting drug dealing and diverting addicts into
treatment to reduce the need to commit crime. Focusing solely
on detecting crimes committed fails to address the underlying
causes of the criminality. Best results would be achieved here
by balancing prevention with detection.
— A prolific offender is arrested.
He may be charged with only two or three offences even though
the police may be aware that he has actually committed perhaps
10 other offences. However, the priority has already been achieved
and the sentence is unlikely to change even if the police go through
the long and expensive process of detecting the other crimes.
In this case, the detection of one crime has achieved the objective
stopping further crime—by removal of the criminal.
2. Developing effective detection
(iv) The police are detecting more crime.
As will be seen from the body of the report below, in 2002-03,
the police in England and Wales detected 8% more crimes over 2001-02.
However, because of changes in crime recording practice (changes
which were designed to give a truer picture of committed crime,)
this success translated into a fall in the detection rate of 0.1%
when described as a percentage of the total recorded.
(v) In addition, the Service has made considerable
efforts to improve its ability to detect crime in recent years.
Work is in hand on a number of measures to improve the professionalism
of our investigative processes. These include the development
of common minimum standards for investigation; enhancing the skills
of detectives; improving forensic capabilities, making all officers
more proficient in interviews of suspects and developing the Service's
line of process through the Crown Prosecution Service and courts.
It is anticipated that this will build on the improvements in
detection already being experienced.
(vi) Detection rates are significant, but
cannot alone provide a reliable indication of performance given
the breadth and significance of modern policing responsibilities.
FURTHER INFORMATION
3. Detection rates and the rates of offending
(i) The detection rate is clearly linked
to the total number of offences recorded. The adoption of the
National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) has meant has meant that
since 1999 the Service now records crime in a way that more accurately
reflect the crime levels actually experienced by citizens. As
a result recorded crime has risen. However, the British Crime
Survey, which talks directly to people about their experience
of crime tells us that the rate of crime has actually continued
to fall, but that a bigger percentage is being recorded. Predictably,
this has resulted in a smaller proportion of offences being detected
when compared against rise in crimes recorded.
(ii) This point is illustrated in figure
1, below, where the impact of the adoption of NCRS on the rate
of detection can be seen. However, whilst the rate has fallen
the number of detected crimes has been increasing. It was up by
8% in 2002-03 over the previous year, even though the rate fell
from 23.5% to 23.4%. The significant changes to the crime recording
rules introduced in recent years are still bedding into the police
service and for the moment remain an unreliable indicator of police
performance against crime, especially if read in isolation from
other indicators.
Figure 1
DETECTION RATES COMPARED WITH OFFENCES
Source: Crime in England and Wales 2003-04
4. Crime Reduction
(i) Whilst we acknowledge the importance
of detecting crime, with the caveats already expressed, we do
feel that Service's emphasis on the reduction of crime makes it
equally important to take into account overall crime figures as
one of the parameters by which its success or otherwise should
be judged. Figure 2, below, is taken from the results of the British
Crime Survey and shows a continuous drop in all categories of
crime over the past 10 years. These figures are derived from interviews
with the population as a whole and as such indicate a truer picture
of the crime that people actually experience as opposed to that
recorded by police.
Figure 2
LEVELS OF CRIME, 1995-2003
Source: Crime in England and Wales 2003-04
(ii) Levels of committed crime peaked in
1995 and have now fallen by 36%. Similarly, it is estimated that
almost 40% of the population were victims of crime in 1995—by
2002-03 this figure had fallen to 27%.
5. Fear of Crime
(i) Similarly, we see the fear of crime
as a key performance indicator for the service, as it especially
reflects our concern to hit the underlying contributors to crime
and criminal behaviour. As part of the reform process over the
past three years the Service has been developing a range of new
strategies and tactics that go beyond simply reducing crime and
address "quality of life issues" and create environments
for people where they feel safe and crime cannot thrive.
(ii) Figure 3 shows that the public's fear
of crime is falling, probably as a result of visible crime reduction.
However, we are certain that it can be further reduced over the
coming years as we improve our capacity to identify underlying
crime patterns, our ability to work effectively with other agencies
and better communicate with people in local areas.
Figure 3
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGING CRIME LEVELS,
BCS 2002-03 to 2003-04
15 September 2004
| 
