Conclusions and recommendations
Funding levels and value for money
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Nature and implications of a tighter financial
settlement in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007
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)
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)
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 that the Government should
commission research into the reasons behind the variations and
what might be done to reduce disparity between forces. (Paragraph
53)
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)
Managing a tighter settlement
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 anti-social 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)
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)
| 
