Conclusions: Funding levels and
value for money
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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. We address the likelihood of such a shortfall
in the next section of this report.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
2 
