Appendix: Government response
1. Despite a headline BCS-measured
crime reduction figure of 35% since 1997, the overall picture
with regard to crime reduction has been more mixed. Over the last
ten years the greatest reductions in crime have been achieved
in volume crime, namely burglary and vehicle theft. Meanwhile,
similar reductions have not been achieved in other crimes. Whilst
the police have been successful in reducing volume crime, other
non-police factors have also contributed to the reduction. (Paragraph
26)
2. Crime levels are affected by
a range of factors other than police resources, including sentencing
policy and the number of individuals in prison at any given time.
Notwithstanding this, we would still have expected the recent
significant extra investment in the police service to have had
a measurable impact on crime levels. It is puzzling to us that
the significant decrease in overall BCS-measured crime occurred
before any significant increase in police funding or in police
officer numbers. Although it is difficult to draw firm conclusions
from high-level data on overall crime and funding levels, the
reduction in overall crime levels does not seem to have been directly
related to additional resources. (Paragraph 27)
As the Committee notes, crime is
affected by a range of factors and it is therefore too crude simply
to compare increases in police funding with changes in crime and
then draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the police
in reducing crime—not least because increases in policing
and their visibility can in fact provide the public with more
confidence to report more crime incidents. Current Home Office
research shows that, when controlling for some of these factors—for
example changes in the economy, demography and social factors—increases
in police strength, visibility and focus have had a significant
impact on reducing crime.
3. On the basis of the data currently
available, it is difficult to assess how effectively the increased
spending on the police in recent years has been deployed. The
Home Office, ACPO and APA have not yet developed mechanisms to
collect or analyse information in any comprehensive way to assess
the productivity and cost-effectiveness of the police service.
Although we welcome the work being done to introduce activity-based
costing of police activities, there remains no precise or implemented
framework of overall productivity, which we consider to be a matter
of some concern. It is hard to assess the case made by the service
and police authorities for more funding when there is no comprehensive
measure of how well they have spent the money they have already
received. We recommend that the Government, in partnership with
the service and police authorities, should place renewed effort
into agreeing a comprehensive framework for assessing police productivity,
allowing a clearer link to be drawn between investment and outcomes.
(Paragraph 28)
As the Committee has acknowledged,
there has been a significant increase in funding for the police—Government
grants have increased by 51% since 1997-98—and it is very
important that we are able to ensure that resources are used to
best effect.
It is generally accepted that no single measure of
productivity will ever be a definitive source of the relationship
between outputs, outcomes and inputs for a complex public service.
Any measure of productivity must be supplemented with other sources
of information, for example, performance data, core research evidence,
and wider sensitivity analysis of key assumptions.
The Policing Performance Assessment
Framework (PPAF) has been developed to assess 'policing' as a
whole and is designed to reflect the breadth of modern policing.
It is about the contribution of local communities and other organisations,
as well as the police service itself. In addition to focusing
on operational effectiveness, the Policing Performance Assessment
Framework provides measures of satisfaction plus overall trust
and confidence in the police, as well as measures that put performance
into context in terms of progress against efficiency targets and
organisational capability. In line with the Government's desire
to enhance policing accountability at a local level, performance
against local priorities is also assessed.
This approach will continue with
the development of the Assessments of Policing and Community Safety,
(APACS), to be introduced in April 2008. In particular it is proposed
to develop for APACS additional indicators of police efficiency,
which will contribute to the overall APACS assessment. A consultation
with the police service about efficiency indicators is presently
underway. It is envisaged that the additional efficiency indicators
would be initially introduced as Diagnostic Indicators from 2008-09.
The indicators would be recommended for adoption as
Performance Indicators once we are satisfied with the reliability
and robustness of data.
4. It follows that it is equally
difficult to assess the implications of any future shortfall in
police funding of the kind predicted by police representatives
during the forthcoming CSR period. (Paragraph 29)
The Government notes the Committee's
views.
5. The Government's key crime reduction
target, 'offences brought to justice', is not a good indicator
of success in relation to the types of crime which the public
fear most. Performance against the target improved by 20% between
1998-99 and 2005-06. However, in the twelve months to March 2006
a large proportion (38%) of offences brought to justice were made
up of petty offences in the form of warnings, Cautions and Penalty
Notices for Disorder, and only 53% comprised convictions. There
is a strong case for excluding summary justice measures from this target. Given that the rate of conviction
remains low as a proportion of all estimated BCS crime, it is
important that any revision of the target should place an increased
emphasis on convictions. We also encourage the Government to maintain
a focus on tackling prolific offenders. (Paragraph 30)
The criminal justice system has
achieved significant improvements in recent years in the number
of offences brought to justice. There were 1.416 million offences
brought to justice in 2006-07—an increase of 41% on 2001-02.
The Government recognises that
much of this increase is attributable to the growth in use of
cautions, penalty notices for disorder and cannabis warnings.
Out-of-court disposals allow the police to deal quickly and efficiently
with low-level offending, as well as providing practical and proportionate
means to address, in a way that a conviction at court may not,
criminal behaviour that could escalate or persist. As a result
of the increased use of out-ofcourt disposals, the proportion
of all offences brought to justice by conviction has reduced,
although the number of convictions has remained broadly stable
at a time when recorded crime has been falling.
We believe it is desirable to retain
out-of-court disposals within an offences brought to justice measure.
Although the public undoubtedly fear the most serious crimes,
we also know that tackling low-level offending and anti-social
behaviour are often key priorities for communities, and measuring
the use of these disposals allows us to recognise efforts to address
such local priorities. However, we acknowledge that the current
target has not provided a clear focus on improving the efficiency
of the criminal justice system, particularly for those more serious
cases which are prosecuted at court. It is for this reason that
the criminal justice public service agreement for the period 2008-11
includes a commitment to improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of the criminal justice system in bringing offences to justice,
rather than increase the volume of offences brought to justice.
The Prolific and other Priority
Offender (PPO) programme continues to tackle a relatively small
group of offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime
and cause disproportionate damage to their communities. The full
evaluation of this programme published in February 2007 shows
that it has had a positive effect on offending rates of the first
cohort of PPOs on the programme, with a 62% reduction in recorded
reconvictions over 17 months. The PPO programme has recently been
aligned with the Drug Interventions Programme to ensure that the
highest crime causing drug-users are identified and targeted.
6. In drawing up the next round
of PSA targets relating to the police, the Government should aim
for a better balance between clearly measurable targets and the
less easily measurable aspects of police performance which are
important to the public—such as reassurance policing. We
expect to be consulted in due course about the Home Office's contribution
to the new target-setting round in the Comprehensive Spending
Review 2007. (Paragraph 31)
Significant consultation has been
undertaken with a wide range of partners on the development of the new 'Make Communities
Safer' PSA that will come into effect from April 2008, details
of which were published in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007.
Feed-back from this consultation echoed the recommendation of
the Committee, and the PSA seeks to address this by including
a focus on increasing public confidence in the police and other
agencies dealing with community safety, as a proxy for things
like reassurance policing and tackling local issues. Research
(from the national reassurance policing programme) has shown that
working successfully with the local community to identify and
address the crime and community safety issues of greatest concern
across the full spectrum of crime and anti-social behaviour results
in higher levels of public confidence. This focus on the 'less
easily measurable' aspects of policing is balanced in the PSA
with more specific objectives on the most harmful violent and
acquisitive crimes, to ensure continued focus on these important
issues. More detailed information is set out in the PSA Delivery
Agreement on the CSR section of the Treasury website (PSA 23).
The PSAs will not, however, represent
the entirety of the performance overview for policing and community
safety. The new performance assessment framework APACS will provide
a more comprehensive and balanced overview of performance for
practitioners and the public. This framework will include an enhanced
focus on confidence and satisfaction, and will cover the full
spectrum of the work of the police, from anti-social behaviour
and quality of life issues through to the most serious and harmful
crimes. A formal consultation on the APACS framework and wider
approach to performance on policing and community safety will
be launched in November.
7. In considering the use made
by the police service of increased resources, we recognise there
is some force in the argument made by the Police Superintendents'
Association that resources have been diverted to the new tasks
the service has been asked to carry out over recent years. However,
we have seen no hard evidence to convince us that these additional responsibilities have
absorbed all the new resources. We do not therefore believe that
new demands alone explain the failure to improve conviction rates.
(Paragraph 32)
The Government has sought to ensure
that new burdens which are placed on the police service are fully
funded.
8. The recent assessments by HM
Treasury and the Audit Commission confirm that there is scope
for more efficient use of police resources. We acknowledge that
progress is being made, and that 42 out of 43 forces performed
'adequately' or 'well' in the Audit Commission's assessment of
use of resources, which is to be welcomed. However, the fact that
none out of the 43 forces achieved a level 4 'strong performance'
rating in the assessment, and the conclusion of HM Treasury that
"progress is slow and patchy", indicates that there
is room for significant further improvement. It is unacceptable
that the significant recent increase in investment in the police
is not being used to maximum effect. In this context we find the
comment by Dr Brain of ACPO that it might not be "value for
money" for police forces to seek to raise their performance
to the top level deeply unpersuasive, and we reject his conclusion. The senior leadership of the police
must demonstrate that they are making concerted and sustained
efforts to target their resources effectively so as to achieve
the Audit Commission's 'strong performance' rating. (Paragraph 33)
The Government also welcomes the
fact that 42 out of 43 police forces performed "adequately"
or "well" in the Audit Commission's assessment of police
use of resources. The Government would expect the pursuit of improved
resource management by police forces and their authorities to
lead to a number of forces achieving a "strong" performance
rating.
9. There is agreement that the
Comprehensive Spending Review financial settlement will be tight
for the police service. Our police witnesses and the Government
were in agreement that the settlement will, at the least, see
a lower rate of increase in the investment the police have enjoyed
over the last few years. The precise scale of the settlement,
and of any related shortfall, remains unclear. (Paragraph 50)
10. We recommend that when the
results of the Comprehensive Spending Review are announced later
this year, the Government should publish at the same time the
full assumptions which underpin the police funding settlement.
(Paragraph 51)
The funding settlements for the
police for the three years of the Comprehensive Spending Review
are due to be published later this year. Final decisions have
yet to be taken but the financial climate is likely to be tighter
than it has been in recent years. The Government will consider
whether it is possible to publish any additional supporting material
at the time of the settlement announcement.
11. We note that the Government
retains the power to place capping limits on council tax increases,
and we acknowledge that the issue of capping is looked at on a
case by case basis. However, we recommend that the Government
should look again at the specific question of whether it is appropriate
for police precept to remain effectively capped at 5% in line
with other local authority budget increase limits. (Paragraph
52)
The Government notes the Committee's
recommendation. Guidelines on capping for all local authorities,
including police authorities, will be announced later this year.
12. We share the concern expressed
by the Minister about the considerable disparities in the amount
of police precept raised by different forces. This is a matter
of significance, particularly where the disparity cannot be adequately
explained by locally made decisions as to the level of service
provided by the police. It is far harder to justify local autonomy
and delegation when not everyone begins at the same starting point.
We recommend will consider whether it is appropriate to take steps
Government should commission research into the reasons behind
the variations and what might be done to reduce disparity between
forces. (Paragraph 53)
The grant distribution contains
an element of equalisation to take account of the different abilities'
of areas to raise funds locally through the police precept. However,
the main factor which explains the disparity in the levels of
police authority precepts is decisions that have been taken locally.
In 1997-98 the lowest band D police precept was 63% of the highest.
By 2007-08 that figure had fallen to 33% reflecting different
approaches to precept taken by police authorities. The Government
will consider whether it is appropriate to seek to narrow the
range.
13. Police pay settlements over
the CSR period will probably be tight. We have seen no short-term
evidence of recruitment and retention problems in the police service.
Indeed, recruitment of both police officers and civilian staff
has been boosted in correlation with the increased resources allocated
to police. However, this issue should be kept under review to
guard against the possibility of problems developing in the longer term. (Paragraph 54)
The Government agrees with the
Committee's assessment of the recruitment and retention position
and supports the recommendation that this issue be kept under
review. This is in line with Recommendation 11 of Sir Clive Booth's
Report "Fair Pay for Police Officers" which we are seeking
to progress through the Police Negotiating Board.
14. Both the police service and
the Government recognise the need for prioritisation and a period
of consolidation to coincide with the CSR years. If the CSR settlement
is as tight as seems likely, police authorities will need to work
closely with forces to identify where there are less urgent programmes
or activities which could be scaled back or postponed if need
be. The Government must play its part by allowing the service—in
the Minister's own words—to "draw breath". Any
new initiatives from the centre should take full account of local
funding implications. (Paragraph 90)
15. A distinction must be drawn
between centrally-run and funded programmes within the police
service, such as those relating to IT, and centrally-driven but
locally funded priorities set by Government, such as the offences
brought to justice target. The Government should ensure that,
so far as possible, no additional non-essential priorities are
set centrally to be funded at force level. It should review the
business cases for all centrally-run and centrally-funded programmes
to see whether they all fully justify the resources devoted to
them in a tight financial climate. (Paragraph 91)
The Government shares the Committee's
view. The Government does not intend to impose new, unfunded burdens on
the police service in the CSR years. All centrally run and funded
programmes are kept under regular review and the National Policing
Board allows for discussion of priorities on a tripartite basis.
16. If the Government is to argue
that the police can meet any funding shortfall from greater financial
efficiency savings, it must be specific and realistic about the
scale and nature of efficiencies it expects the police to make.
(Paragraph 92)
The Home Office is working in partnership
with police authorities and chief officers through the Police
Efficiency Group to develop an efficiency strategy and programme
for the CSR 07 years. We expect this to clearly identify a number
of areas in which there are significant opportunities for the
police service to increase efficiency. However the detailed planning
for increasing efficiency in each force will rightly remain a
matter for that force and its police authority. Forces and authorities
will be best placed to judge the appropriate set of initiatives
and to plan their implementation, so as to achieve optimal increases
in efficiency, taking into account the particular circumstances
of each force.
17. Shared services were identified
as a key element in improving police efficiency in 2004. The evidence
suggests that the police are being sluggish in developing shared
services, which then enables them to argue that use of such services
cannot release savings in time for the CSR period. The current
Home Office policy of not exercising its powers to mandate forces
to share services, but of encouraging them to do so on a voluntary
basis, is understandable given the wish to maintain positive relationships
between Government and police. However, as we noted in paragraph
67 above, this means the onus is very much on the police themselves
to demonstrate that they are genuinely committed to making progress
in this area and to releasing the potential benefits of shared
services programmes. We recommend that the Home Office should keep under review its policy of
not mandating police forces in this regard. (Paragraph 93)
The Government welcomes this recommendation,
but remains of the view that mandation would not be appropriate
at present. An outline business case (OBC) for national shared
services for finance and human resources has been developed and
published to the service on behalf of the Police Efficiency Group
through a programme led by a senior police officer. The service
is considering whether and how to take this forward. The Government
expects that the police service will seize the opportunities identified
in the OBC to drive substantial improvements in the efficiency
of finance and HR processes, whether or not this leads ultimately
to a police specific shared service programme.
18. Police authorities have a significant
role to play in holding the police service to account and working
to ensure that individual forces perform effectively and efficiently.
We therefore welcome the inspection framework for police authorities
being drawn up by HMIC and the Audit Commission and support its
speedy implementation. (Paragraph 94)
The Government agrees with the
Select Committee's view of the critical role police authorities
play in holding chief officers to account. Inspection of police
authorities' activities will provide an objective and evidenced
basis for the assessment and comparison of performance and for
driving further performance improvement. It will also facilitate
targeted support where this is needed.
Provisions in the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Bill, published in July 2007, will give HMIC powers
to carry out general inspections of the performance of any aspect
of police authority activity and enable joint inspections with
the Audit Commission, which is gaining enhanced inspection powers
through the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health
Bill.
A unified inspection regime involving
HMIC and the Audit Commission acting together will provide consistent
assessments which draw on the expertise and knowledge of both
bodies and minimise the inspection burden on authorities. We are
working with HMIC, the Commission and the Association of Police
Authorities to develop a joint protocol which will underpin this
inspection process and set out principles for how it will be managed.
We hope that the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Bill will receive Royal Assent in the summer of
2008. Once the legislation is in place and HMIC and the Audit
Commission have the necessary powers to carry out inspections
we will work with stakeholders to implement inspection arrangements
which meet the Government's principles of public service inspection.
19. Effective delegation of resources
management to BCU level makes a significant contribution to the
efficient use of resources. There are examples of good practice
with regard to the effective delegation of resource management
to a local level. However, it is regrettable that many forces
seem not to have fully implemented the recent Home Office guidance.
We were dismayed to hear of the PSA's concerns in this regard.
We recommend that ACPO and police authorities exert pressure on
individual forces to implement the guidance. (Paragraph 95)
The Government remains committed
to delegation of resources to BCU level and is pleased that the
Committee has received evidence of good practice. The Government
expect the Home Office guidance to be complied with and welcomes
the suggestion that ACPO and police authorities should seek to
ensure this.
20. The police service has argued
for greater financial flexibility. The Government has responded
to calls from the police for greater flexibility around funding
streams by relaxing rules on the Crime Fighting Fund, and has
indicated its willingness to do the same for other specific grants.
The police now need to make the case for any remaining ring-fenced
funds to be relaxed. (Paragraph 96)
The Government has made a concerted
effort to move from ring-fenced to general funding for the police
in recent years and will continue to do so where appropriate.
The proportion of Government police funding that takes the form
of ring-fenced grants is low.
21. The great advantage of Police
Community Support Officers is their visible and reassuring presence
on the streets, dealing with lower-level crime, disorder and antisocial
behaviour. This enables police officers—including the Special
Constabulary—to concentrate on tackling higher-level crime
which is of most concern to the public. We were therefore concerned
to hear that PCSOs are in some instances being deployed to perform
office functions rather than front-line duties. The Minister offered
to commission research into how PCSOs are being used, now that
the target for recruitment has been met. We welcome this offer
and recommend that independent research be commissioned as a matter
of priority. We also welcome the offer of research on the same
subject from the Police Federation. (Paragraph 97)
The Government is pleased that
the Committee has acknowledged the valuable contribution Police Community Support
Officers make to the delivery of Neighbourhood Policing. The Committee has clearly recognised that a significant part of the PCSO role is to provide a visible and reassuring presence on the streets
and in other public places. However, we know from the evaluation
of the National Reassurance Policing Programme, the precursor
to Neighbourhood Policing, that if we are to address effectively
the priorities and issues identified by local communities, then
engagement and problem-solving are equally as important as increased
visibility on patrol.
In recognition of this, PCSOs will
rightly spend some of their time on duty engaging with the many
and varied communities they serve and developing effective partnerships,
both in their local community and with other local agencies, to
problem-solve the priorities identified by the community. We believe
that this is a legitimate and necessary use of a PCSOs time and
accept that whilst most of this work will be very public facing
and visible—with community meetings in schools, supermarkets
and even in the street— PCSOs will also need to spend time
in the office organising their community meetings, liaising with
other local agencies to find solutions to problems identified
by their local community, and being briefed themselves about particular
issues to be aware of in their area. However, we would expect
the majority of their time to be spent in the community.
We accept that after the successful
introduction of 16,000 PCSOs it would be timely to look at how
these officers are contributing to the overall Neighbourhood Policing
picture. The Home Office is currently carrying out work in this
area and we expect this to provide information which will help
us to identify and understand the activities undertaken by PCSOs
within different forces.
22. We acknowledge that there is
a minimum amount of paperwork required to ensure accurate records
and audit trails from police casework. However, the proportion
of police officer time spent on paperwork in each of the last
three years, at about 20% in total, of which half is non-incident-related,
remains unacceptably high and is a source of real public concern.
There has been insufficient progress in introducing personal digital assistants across all forces;
this would save considerable amounts of police officer time. We
recommend that Chief Constables should ensure this technology
is introduced in all forces as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 98)
The Government remains committed
to tackling unnecessary bureaucracy. The key responsibility is
for everyone involved in policing, including local managers and
chief officers to keep processes as streamlined as possible, however
policing is sometimes a coercive activity and it is appropriate
for well kept and comprehensive records to be compiled.
We have already delivered considerable
reductions in bureaucracy through innovations such as video identity
parades, roll out of the airwave system, the implementation of
198 Livescan units (which record fingerprints electronically),
the civilianisation of custody suites and the current review of
PACE.
We recognise that more progress
is needed, and this is why reducing unnecessary bureaucracy was
included within Sir Ronnie Flanagan's Independent Review of Policing.
Sir Ronnie's interim report was published on 12 September and
set out 13 recommendations focussed on delivering further reductions
to unnecessary bureaucracy. On mobile data Sir Ronnie has recommended
that the Mobile Information Programme Board should urgently identify
the costs and benefits of rolling out mobile data and recommend
an appropriate way for doing so. The Government is currently considering
its response to Sir Ronnie's interim report.
In the shorter term the Prime Minister
announced on Monday 24 September that handheld computers would
be made available—1,000 now, and 10,000 next year—to
police officers across the country. In addition the Home Secretary
announced on 27 September a £50million capital fund to give
the police access to 21st century crime fighting technologies
including handheld computers and mobile fingerprinting devices.
| 
