Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
This response relates to your request dated
14 October to all Chief Constables, and to the subsequent
communication between Sir Hugh Orde, the President for ACPO, and
your office. This response is the agreed combined ACPO response
on behalf of the police service for England and Wales.
ACPO Finance and Resources Business Area has
collated the responses to your letter of 14 October and the
results have been analysed to compile a composite report addressing
the information sought. For clarity below are the numbered bullet
points in your request to forces;
1. The number of police officers and staff currently
employed by the force;
2. How this figure has changed over the past
five years (including details of business areas where reductions
or increases have occurred if possible);
3. Any comments on the relationship between these
trends, the most recent CSR funding settlement, efficiency savings
targets, the force's overall financial position and any other
factors;
4. An indication of likely changes to the workforce
during the remainder of 2009-10 and in 2010-11;
5. Given the apparent inevitability of public
spending cuts, which will undoubtedly impact on the police service,
what plans the force is putting in place to deal with reduced
funding.
ANSWERS TO
QUESTIONS 1-5
Appendix A is a table providing the individual
force responses to all of the questions posed. The responses have
been abbreviated for ease of clarity.
Enquiries have established that forces have
interpreted question ONE in many different ways, and as such the
figures cannot be directly compared to Home Office Police Service
Strength statistics. The definition for the Home Office returns
are very precise, whereas for this return, forces have used their
own interpretations such as "budgeted strengths" or
"Full Time Equivalents" or "Head Counts".
Also some forces have included externally funded posts, agency
staff, traffic wardens, designated officers, and other groups
not generally included in the Home Office statistics.
1. NATIONAL OVERVIEW
The following is a national overview of the
issues raised and trends identified;
It is clear that there are no notable changes
to police force strengths (Officers or Staff) during the current
financial year, although a number of forces in anticipation of
future funding concerns are freezing recruitment or using methods
such as vacancy management (holding vacancies) to conserve budgets.
There will be a lag effect for these measures to be noticeable
in resourcing strength totals.
Without exception, all forces are concerned as
to the future outlook and the funding position into the next year
and beyond. The recession is a clear driver in this, coupled with
messages from Government on driving down public sector spending
to reduce the national debt, and revenue costs. It is anticipated
in the coming year that there will be significant reductions in
police grants and precept settlements. There is much concern as
to the levels of reduction, as this will undoubtedly impact on
forces' abilities to meet their service needs. Generally forces
have given a commitment to protect the "front line",
recognising that cuts will need to be made.
2. THE INCOME
STREAMS
— Police national grant (Home Office)
— Revenue from Council Tax precept
— Specific Grants; to include Counter Terrorism,
Neighbourhood Policing, Crime Fighting Fund, and others
— Partnership and sponsorship funding
— Income generation from charging for goods
and services
— Interest from investment of reserves
— Efficiency savings are also of relevance
here as monies saved can be reinvested elsewhere, or used to reduce
costs.
3. COMPREHENSIVE
SPENDING REVIEW
For a number of years police forces have benefited
from a three-year Comprehensive Spending Review settlement (CSR).
This is very welcomed by forces as it provides financial planning
stability. However, the CSR for the next period (2001-13) has
been postponed pending the General election, and its future is
uncertain. A return to annual settlements would increase uncertainty
and be detrimental to be progress seen in recent times. ACPO fully
endorse maintaining the three-year CSR settlements.
4. NATIONAL GENERAL
GRANT FORMULA
The Home Office national general grant for policing
is distributed by means of a needs based funding formula. Since
its inception, this grant has never been distributed without a
dampening mechanism, as to do so would cause significant funding
issues for around a third of forces nationally. Effectively the
dampening mechanism acts as a "floor", guaranteeing
that all forces receive a minimum of a 2.5% increase compared
to the previous year. Consequently the forces set to receive the
higher end proportion of the grant are effectively capped by a
"ceiling" so as to fund the "floor". The figure
below reproduced from the Flanagan review report, highlights the
"winners" and "losers" from this process (in
2007).
However, it cannot be assumed, as Flanagan did,
that the funding formula is fully "fit for purpose"
and sensitive to all the complex factors that determine policing
need in any one area. Indeed the funding formula is technically
not a measure of policing need at all; it is simply a means of
the distributing a block grant, which is itself determined by
a political process. One of the problems with the existing funding
formula, for example, is the way it currently reflects population
distribution across a force area, although this is currently under
review.
A revision of the funding formula along the
lines proposed in the Flanagan report would not just result in
the re-distribution of grant across force boundaries but would
affect regional groupings as well. Thus, for example all three
forces in the North East would be net substantial losers under
the redistribution effect.
It is clear is that a dampening mechanism, while
frustrating for some forces, is useful in ensuring the stability
of police numbers across the whole of the country.
Fig 2, indicates the cost benefit to forces (in police
constable units) of an un-dampened funding formula allocation.
5. COUNCIL TAX—CAPPING
Council tax in many areas has played a vitally
important part in achieving growth. In forces which do not achieve
high distribution levels from the funding formula, council tax
is essential in maintaining service levels. Council tax is now
responsible for providing over 25% out of all funding available
to the 43 forces, although the degree varies tremendously
depending on the distribution level of Home Office grant received
from the funding formula.
Where Government Grant settlement falls short
of expectation, or is cut, there is a gearing effect between a
percentage cut in grant and the equivalent increase required in
council tax to meet the shortfall. By way of example, in Gloucestershire
a 1% reduction in Government Grant would require a 2.3% increase
in council tax precept.
Above inflationary increases in the council
tax has played a significant part in recent service improvements.
With the formula grant floor increase only sufficient to cover
the annual pay award and specific grants being frozen (real term
reductions) the only funding available to improve service delivery
and meet national and locally identified development has come
from efficiencies and the council tax.
As previously stated the anticipated reduction
in Government funding will require efficiencies to be "cashed
in" and there is evidence in the Force returns that a number
of Forces are relying on the maintenance of the current council
tax capping level as a way of meeting unavoidable development
(such as the set up costs of new systems and processes designed
to release future productivity and efficiencies) and to help offset
some of the anticipated reduction in Government funding.
Forces who are heavily reliant on council tax
revenue for meeting their funding needs, have expressed concerns
as to future capping situations. It is evident that since 1997,
the growth in council tax as a proportion of force budgets has
been necessary to meet the service delivery requirements and expectations.
This is particularly relevant to smaller shire forces who receive
"floor" level general grant funding, which increases
barely in line with staff pay.
If future caps are set at or below the 3% level
this will severely effect force funding, and impact on service
delivery leading to cuts in resources. The loss of funds through
the application of Flanagan's recommendation, a freeze or reduction
in the relative value of council tax, and a freeze or reduction
in the value of government grant, would represent for many forces
a triple "whammy" which would at best, be highly destabilising.
6. USE OF
RESERVES
A recent survey undertaken by the Finance and
Resources business area identified the fact that several forces
were already into a situation of using budget reserves to maintain
service delivery. Clearly this position is not sustainable in
the medium to long term, particularly given the financial outlook.
7. SPECIFIC FUNDING
A number of forces have increased staffing due
to specific grants. A key growth area is in the area of Counter
Terrorism in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings. Regional
Counter Terrorist Units have seen significant growth, with their
increase in staff (owned by the host force) being reflected within
the national figures.
It is also the case that there are a number
of specific grants to address certain identified areas, such as
the security or royal residences, and key strategic locations.
Therefore, simplistic per capita comparisons of like size forces
would be problematic without analysing the detail.
Forces are also concerned about the potential
loss of specific grants, in particular the Neighbourhood Policing
Fund (NPF) grant for PCSOs.
8. CHANGES REQUIRING
GROWTH IN
THE POLICE
SERVICE
Over the last ten years, the police service
has undergone significant modernisation with regards to business
practices and the workforce. This has been driven by Government
policy, responses to good practice advice (eg Bichard enquiry)
and changes to and introduction of legislation. These requirements
have necessitated growth in officers and staff.
9. PROTECTIVE
SERVICES GAP
An identified area of weakness which was evident
from the review on amalgamations was a Protective Services gap.
In light of recommendations by the HMIC, some forces have invested
savings, or diverted funding to closing this gap.
10. OFFICER NUMBER,
PRODUCTIVITY AND
THE FRONT
LINE
Police officer numbers is still only part of
the overall picture, as innovations with technology, processes,
collaboration, partnership, outsourcing are constantly driving
up productivity and performance allowing the same level of service
(or even better levels of service) to be delivered with less police
officers. The recent introduction of police objective analysis,
which will form the basis of future HMIC VfM evaluation, may provide
the ideal opportunity to explore opportunities to move away from
police numbers per say and towards a better understanding of efficiency
and effectiveness (eg the percentage of resources directly employed
in front line delivery).
The "front-line" is often mentioned
in the responses (and by Government) albeit no definition has
ever been provided. Clearly this can be open to a very wide (or
narrow) interpretation. There is also a myth that back-office
functions can simply be deleted, thus freeing up resources to
the front line. Clearly the front line's support mechanism is
the back-office, therefore creative thinking and import decisions
will need to be taken in thinning out a workforce, as most back
office functions are required for reasons such as; legislative
mandates (eg data protection), underpinning the patrolling officer;
command and control and the criminal justice framework.
11. WORKFORCE
MODERNISATION
The application of Workforce Modernisation is
cited as a tool that has been used, and will continue to be used,
by all Forces. The original concept of Workforce Modernisation
is to find the right mix of staff resources to perform a function
at the lowest costs. The theory implies that reducing the number
of police officers within a function and replacing them with "lower
cost" police staff would make a saving. However, when aligned
to shift working, police staff are often as expensive or sometimes
more expensive than officer colleagues. A general comment is that
the misapplication of modernisation can result in forces losing
flexibility in the use of their resources compared to officers.
The majority of forces who have driven out efficiencies
through Workforce Modernisation (WFM), have reinvested the savings
to the front line. Self evidently this is a "one-off"
saving and consequently the search for further opportunities has
been reduced. It should be noted that resilience in the use of
officer resources becomes more difficult if they are replaced
by police staff, who are contractually different.
12. EFFICIENCIES
The Government first introduced their efficiency
targets for the police service in 1999-2000. In the years since,
many forces have already introduced efficiencies, including WFM,
structural reorganisation and collaboration schemes. Lean thinking
methodologies, including the Home Office supported "Quest"
project, have also been extensively used. Forces that have already
made extensive efficiencies, therefore, have less room to introduce
further savings now. This does not mean that efficiencies will
not be sought, but that the effects arising from them are likely
to prevent a general fall in officer and staff numbers.
13. FORCE REVIEWS
It is evident that the majority of forces are
in various stages of force reviews, or see the need to conduct
a review dependant on future funding settlements. A few forces
have transformed away from a BCU structure, as a means of cutting
costs.
All forces start at different positions with
regards to driving out efficiencies. For forces near the end of
the main journey of big gains or quick wins, finding further efficiencies
will be more difficult.
14. COLLABORATION
AND MERGERS
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire have indicated
that a voluntary merger, with each other, would be a suitable
way forward to bridge the funding gap, by sharing central services
and resources. As was identified by the amalgamations debate of
2005-06, mergers are not necessarily the right option for all
forces, indeed initial set-up costs and delayed pay-back time
were the real inhibitor to the move then. Some forces might benefit
by merging, but the evidence from 2005-06 is that it is unlikely
to be a panacea, and certainly not at a time of national financial
stringency.
Collaboration is at various stages either on
a partnership, force, regional or national basis. It is clear
there are savings to be made, and forces are engaged or have realised
savings through this process. This process is under continual
review and will continue to deliver, however the scale set against
the likely backdrop of future funding settlements will be minor
in impact.
15. PLANS TO
ADDRESS SEVERE
CUTS IN
FUNDING
A freeze on recruitment and a thinning through
natural wastage to deliver the scale of savings required would
be the quickest route for realising savings, however this may
not be sufficient. Extended freezes on recruiting also have long-term
detrimental impacts on the future staff profile. The majority
of forces have realised that this will be the likelihood and are
in the process of, or considering, a structural review to deliver
services with fewer staff.
Forces who suffer immediate significant funding
reductions would have insufficient time to make the necessary
reductions in their expenditure. This is because 80% of expenditure
is staff related, police officers cannot be made redundant, significant
reserves would be needed for police staff redundancy costs, and
it is not lawful to backfill with a police officer a post from
which a member of police staff has been made redundant as this
is classified as unfair dismissal.
Nevertheless, forces are extremely active in
seeking ways to minimise the impact of lower funding. Below is
a summary being considered by forces to reduce costs;
— Collaboration and shared services with
partners and other forces
— Voluntary mergers (Hertfordshire and
Bedfordshire)
— Procurement opportunities
— Force reviews of structures and critical
processes
— Force restructuring, to downsize
— Zero based budgets or budget benchmarking
— Review of sickness management
— Review of capital projects
— Value For Money reviews
— Benchmarking against other forces
For some Forces time can be bought by using
Reserves to prop up the budget whilst longer term solutions are
developed and put into place; for example the return from Essex
shows a reliance on £12.9 million of Reserve support
over the next four years whilst permanent savings, as yet unidentified,
are sought and implemented. However few Forces have the luxury
of such high levels of uncommitted Reserves to enable them to
buy such time.
16. CONCLUSION
— Forces clearly have a common theme on
methods of addressing funding gaps through a series of efficiency
measures.
— The general grant funding formula is
currently under review, however serious consideration should be
given before removal of the dampening mechanism.
— Current restrictions on certain grants
inhibit a wider use of those funds, this can hinder creativity
in delivering the service.
— Large efficiency gains, particularly
through workforce modernisation have already produced quick wins,
further efficiencies are likely to be smaller in scale.
— Consideration should be given to removing
or altering capping levels, thereby providing greater flexibility
in raising additional funding locally.
— CSR three year settlements are considered
of great benefit to the police service for future planning, and
a return to annual settlements would be a retrograde step.
— Public sector funding cuts, will undoubtedly
effect the partnership funding or resources and projects.
— Resource cuts are inevitable if funding
settlements are low, it is clear 80% or policing costs are staff
related, therefore the room to make efficiencies and retain staff
with lower budgets is limited.
— Forces will commit to "front line"
services, however difficult risk based decisions will need to
be made in respect of cutting resources, and restructuring.
November 2009
APPENDIX A
REGION |
FORCE | Officers |
PCSO | Staff | Total
| Comment on trends | General comments
| Indication of likely changes | Future plan
|
SW | Avon & Somerset
| 3,351 | | 2,363
| 5,714 | — South West One project required an initial secondment of employees explaining the decline.
| — £35.5 million loss through FF-C
— Over achievements in efficiency targets
| — Further WFM
— Forecast deficit of £4.5 million leading to reductions in staff.
| — Continued savings through southwest one project
— Operation Quest
— Scrutiny review to drive out £2 million from budgets
— Collaboration actively engaged in 78 ventures
|
| E | Bedfordshire | 1,274
| | 957 | 2,231
| — Funding ceiling loser) Large council tax settlements (14.7%—05, 9.6%—09)
| — FF-C £3.9 million per annum
— Collaboration with Hertfordshire producing savings of £2.2 million (combined)
| — Difficult decisions re resources owing to expected tight future settlements
| — Quest
— Voluntary merger with Herts.
|
| E | Cambridgeshire | 1,399
| 203 | 1,056 | 2,658
| — WFM 15% staff increase, officer increase 3%. Further information not stated
| — Poor funding per 1,000 population
| — Changes in NRE to GRE means an additional need to find further cashable savings
— Small cuts in staffing being considered to address funding shortfall
| — Review of service delivery and force wide savings
— To explore income generation options
|
| NW | Cheshire | 2,142
| | 1,872 | 4,014
| — WFM (file preparation, resource deployment)
— Increase in protective services, from a £1 million council tax raise 07/08.
| — None | — Cuts 2010-11 will be likely to address budget shortfall
| — Force has a strategy in place with five strands. This includes a review of frontline services and business and operational processes
— Benchmark budget lines
|
| NE | Cleveland | 1,736
| 188 | 716 | 2,640
| — Outsourced custody releasing 36 PC's to frontline.
| — WFM | — Reviewing ICT and control room
| — Procurement process underway for the appointment of a strategic partner, to deliver improved ICT/control room
— Further collaboration
|
| NW | Cumbria | 1,251
| 107 | 836 | 2,194
| — Floor grant settlement) Vacancy management.
| — FF-F | — Vacancy management
| — Change program
— Efficiency and productivity regime
— Seek WFM opportunities
— Procurement savings
— Shared services initiative with HR and finance
— Cuts likely of staff/officers
|
| EM | Derbyshire | 2,100
| | 1,615 | 3,715
| — Police growth in protective services (regional collaboration).
— WFM, CDO's etc.
| — Closing protective services gap
— Staff growth due to legislation changes requirements
— FF-C £5 million loss
| — Police staff cuts | — Review of savings proposals
— "Moving forward" project (strategic review) to meet the savings required
— Committed to frontline services however cuts in staff cannot be discounted
|
| SW | Devon & Cornwall |
3,500 | 361 | 2,248
| 6,109 | — Corporate services review removed 250+ support staff posts from back office (workforce efficiencies)
| — Many years of back office savings
— Collaboration has contributed to savings
| — If reductions in budgets are as forecasted then high likelihood of cuts in resources
| — Continue with efficiencies, however unlikely to meet anticipated funding gap
|
| SW | Dorset | 1,459
| 162 | 1,065 | 2,686
| — WFM 16% increase in-staff 5%—increase in officers
| — None | — Review of non staff budgets, operational processes
| — Inevitability of resource cuts to meet significant funding shortfall
— Vacancy management
— Implement leaner processes & resourcing
|
| NE | Durham | 1,514
| 171 | 984 | 2,669
| — WFM 35% increase in staff, 6% decrease officers. (Control room, CJD, CDO, Front counter)
— Use of reserves.
| — Recruitment freeze | — No expectation of numbers increasing
| — Vacancy freeze on non essential police staff/officer posts
— Review of processes and workloads
— Review sickness and absence
— Review of shift patterns
— Further WFM
— Cut in police staff through natural wastage
— Review budget lines for VFM
|
| E | Essex | 3,634
| 474 | 2,284 | 6,392
| — Op Apex
— Growth in officers numbers to meet neighbourhood roles
— Modest growth in protective services
| — Good levels of reserves no debt
| — PC and PCSO to remain stable
— Police staff to be reduced between 5%-10% through restructuring
| — Force restructuring
— Shared business support functions
— Further collaboration (back office and procurement)
— Op Apex
|
| SW | Gloucestershire | 1,372
| 178 | 779 | 2,329
| — 63 council funded officers
— Protective services increase
| — Lowest in the country council tax precept increase 2009-10
— FF-F
— 10% reliance on DSP funding for dedicated posts
— £10M projected cuts required over the five years
| — Projected cuts of 65 officers and 50 staff post 2009-10
| — Review of force structure and processes in progress
— Further staffing cuts will be inevitable with reduced funding
— Leaning process
|
| NW | GMP | 8,231
| | 5,038 | 13,269
| — No information. | — None
| — WFM of 200 officer posts
— Freeze on recruitment 2010-11
— Police staff cuts
| — It is identified that there will be a need to review of key processes and structures
|
| SE | Hampshire | 3,748
| 337 | 2,489 | 6,574
| — Funding ceiling loser
— 32% council tax reliance
— WFM
— Strategic lean team.
| — FF-C £1.5 million shortfall (period not specified)
— Concerns over future capping
— Budget pressures of £5 million
— Low reserves
— Estates in need of modernising
— Lean team approach to efficiencies and better working practices
| — Review of budget lines
— Resource cuts on horizon
| — Review and cuts in staffing to meet funding gap
— May lead to reverse civilianisation
— Seek further collaboration initiatives
— Continue exploring income generation and sponsorship opportunities
— Zero based budget review by external consultants
|
| E | Hertfordshire | 2,090
| | 1,973 | 4,063
| — WFM
— Cashable efficiencies (10% of budget.
| — FF-C £3.7 million
— Pressures on competitive labour costs owing to border with London
| — None | — Business case for a voluntary merger with Bedfordshire police to address funding gaps
|
| NE | Humberside | 2,054
| 322 | 1,630 | 4,006
| — Establishment of a customer call centre (70 posts)
— 160 staff employed by external funding sources
— WFM—protected services.
| — Police staff cuts
— Humberside consider themselves to be advanced in the WFM mix at the front line
| — Reduction of police staff to meet funding settlement
— Reduction of a further 70 officer posts through WFM
| — Seek further WFM
— Cuts in workforce through vacancy other than the 300 planned reductions in officers, no further plans to reduce officers—however subject to review and funding settlements
|
| SE | Kent | 3,875
| | 3,269 | 7,144
| — Cashable efficiencies of £13 million in five years
| — Leaning process has identified £7.8 million efficiencies (£2.9 million of which is cashable).
| — Significant planned police staff reduction 09-11 to meet funding savings
| — Lean team methodology to review of processes and posts that become vacant
— Set target of 5% reduction on all budget holders
— Collaboration opportunities with Essex (ongoing)
— Use of technology to further increase efficiency
|
| NW | Lancashire | 3,673
| | 2,371 | 6,044
| — Council tax increases
— Cashable efficiencies
— Partnership funding for staff
| — Currently undertaking a scoping exercise to consider the shape of the workforce given the likely future funding
| — 2009-11 will undoubtedly see a reduction in the overall workforce, frontline services will be protected as far as possible
| — Currently undertaking critical review of functions and services to ensure fit for purpose identifying opportunities for savings
|
| EM | Leicestershire | 2,344
| 240 | 1,296 | 3,880
| — Reduction in BCU's from 4 to 3 April 07
— Increase to cover protective services
— WFM
— Partnership funding
| — FF-C
— Low reserves—would be insufficient to meet a major enquiry (Soham/lpswich)
| — Current three month recruitment freeze for all posts to identify wastage
— Current block on officer moves and promotions pending review
| — Force has established a Savings Delivery Team to identify opportunities to save money
— 20 years estate review to realise capital through sale of assets
— Managed reduction in workforce through natural wastage
|
| EM | Lincolnshire | 1,195
| 149 | 994 | 2,338
| — WFM
— Critical review delivering £2.3 million efficiencies
— Use of £2.6 million reserves due to capping
| — 08/09 large council tax precept was agreed to alleviate the existing funding shortfall
— Radical risk based reprioritisation of resources releasing £1.5 million to balance budget
— FF-F
| — Minimal changes in workforce anticipated
| — Service review to identify efficiencies
— Continuance of county council funding towards the cost of PCSOs
|
| L | City of London | 813
| | 342 | 115 |
— WFM
— Improvement in operational processes (Quest)
— Reliance on DSP funding
| — FF-F
— WFM
— Heavy reliance on DSP funding
— Quest has been used to— improve business processes
— Workforce has been restructured
| — None | — No future plan, however identified that funding shortfalls will directly impact on service delivery
|
| NW | Merseyside | 4,558
| 449 | 2,122 | 7,129
| — Ceiling loser
— Cashable savings invested in police growth (197 officers)
— Restructuring = efficiencies (back office to front line) also protective services
| — FF-F | — Information not provided
| — Information not provided, however force states that they are working together with the PA to examine various funding scenarios for 10-13
|
| L | Met Service | 33,318
| 4,685 | 14,488 | 52,491
| — Dedicated grants used to increase establishment
— WFM
| — Increase in police officer posts have generally been due to additional specific funding, including working with local boroughs
| — Operation Herald—recruit 900 more civilians for custody duty, returning officers to the frontline
| — An improvement plan being introduced, with four main themes: shared services, lean processes, income generation and procurement (main thrust is to maintain frontline delivery)
|
| E | Norfolk | 1,666
| | 1,415 | 3,081
| — £14 million non cashable and cashable efficiency savings
| — Driving out savings through rigorous efficiency methods, directing savings to the frontline
— Supportive PA in precept setting
| — Commitment to frontline, no planned cuts for the immediate future
| — Funding settlements be significant in the future, cuts to resources will be inevitable
— Review of services cutting staff
— Collaboration opportunities
— Seek best value in procurement
|
| EM | Northamptonshire | 1,335
| 171 | 1,184 | 2,690
| — Increase staff in protected services, neighbourhood policing and training
— WFM
| — None | — Significant reductions in police staff numbers are anticipated
— Possibility of reduction in PCSO which are link to partnership
| — Significant review to drive out efficiencies
— Collaboration
— And review of capital programme
— Targeted use of reserves to assist downsizing
|
| NE | Northumbria | 4,110
| | 2,588 | 6,698
| — WFM 28% increase in police staff, releasing officers to frontline, underpinning neighbourhood policing
| — FF-F | — No significant changes anticipated
| — Review has taken place, however the position for 10/11 has not been finalised
|
| NE | North Yorkshire | 1,483
| | 1,405 | 2,888
| — WFM? 21% increase in police staff, 5% decrease in officers (compared to 2004)
| — In 07/08 undertook a capability and capacity review which realised an estimated £7 million annual savings which was reinvested into the frontline
| — 09-10 continue existing recruitment plan for PC/PCSO
| — Some shrinkage is predicted however a number of model scenarios have been developed which is dependant for the future financial situation
|
| EM | Nottinghamshire | 2,350
| 252 | 1,523 | 4,125
| — WFM 15% increase in police staff, 3% decrease in officers (compared to 2004)
| — None | — Vacancy management for police staff posts
— Seeking WFM opportunities
| — Systematic review adopting lean processes and benchmarking
— Review of capital programme
— Await clarity on future funding to inform decisions on staffing levels
|
| NE | South Yorkshire | 2,948
| | 2,640 | 5,588
| — WFM 25% increase in police staff, 7% decrease in officers (compared to 2004)
| — WFM removing officers from non essential tasks
| — No comment provided | — Anticipated that severe funding cuts will lead to significant further staff/officer
|
| WM | Staffordshire | 2,244
| 262 | 1,617 | 4,123
| — Efficiencies in back office
— WFM
| — Organisational review has taken place which has realised a restructuring of the workforce
— WFM has driven out a number of officer posts
| — Slight reduction in police officer until March 2010, staff/PCSO remain constant
| — A decision has not yet been taken as to the rationalisation of the service which is dependant on the future financial settlements
— Will continue to drive out efficiencies
— Continuing to undertake collaborative opportunities across the region and locally
|
| E | Suffolk | 1,309
| | 1,220 | 2,529
| — WFM | — WFM has reduced officer numbers and increased staff, however during this process the front line has been protected
| — Likelihood of further WFM opportunities
| — Seek out further collaboration with Norfolk on shared service ventures to drive down costs
— Review of business processes to drive out efficiencies for a balanced downsizing of resources
|
| SE | Surrey | 1,815
| | 2,240 | 4,055
| — WFM 22% increase in police staff, 2% decrease in officers (compared to 2004)
| — Surrey establishes itself as a WFM pioneer saving £2.3 million in annual operating costs
— Surrey was capped in year requiring rebilling of £1.2 million
| — Owing to the capping decision loss of 38 officers and 11 police staff is necessary
| — A fundamental review with the support of the PA has been commissioned to review operational policing model to reduce cost and seek efficiencies
|
| SE | Sussex | 3,260
| | 2,564 | 5,824
| — WFM 21% increase in police staff
— DSP funds 80 posts
— Increase in protective services
| — FF-F | — There are no significant changes anticipated for 09/10
| — Force budget holders have been tasked to submit proposals to make savings of 2%
— As a result of the review a possible reduction of 80 officers and 26 police staff posts have been identified b) vacancy management
— Further reduction in staff would be likely dependant on future financial position
— Reduction in capital programme with minimal fleet and equipment replacement programme
— Consideration to changes in management structures and BCUs
— Seek out further collaboration opportunities
|
| SE | Thames Valley | 4,419
| | 3,587 | 8,006
| — £14.6 million cashable savings (last two years) due to extensive efficiency strategy
| — Savings re-invested to neighbourhood policing
| — 2009-11 it is proposed to maintain police officer and PCSO strength, however likelihood of reductions in 2010-11 police staff posts (180 approx)
| — Zero based budget approach being taken across organisation, coupled with productivity plan to seek savings
|
| WM | Warwickshire | 987
| | 897 | 1,885
| — WFM 24% increase in police staff, 1.4% decrease in officers (compared to 2004)
— Significant force restructuring, involving removal of BCU through task force approach
| — Significant force restructuring, involving removal of BCU through task force approach
— Requirement of a £4.5 million cashable savings in the next three years
— Funding gap of £6.8 million per annum
| — WFM to reduce officer establishment
— Vacancy management
| — Sustainable strategy with 2 elements. 1) Embedding culturing change through leadership 2) working smarter to drive out waste, including reviewing capital and corporate expenditure, also exploring opportunities for outsourcing and collaboration
— if the current modelling of cuts is more severe then this will require a fundamental structural change, effecting levels/range of services
|
| WM | West Mercia | 2,432
| | 2,063 | 4,495
| — WFM 19% increase in police staff (although 5% increase in officers)
— Increase in front line resources
| — Cuts in resources will be focused to have minimal affect on frontline delivery
| — Slight reductions in workforce for the remainder of 09/10 with further reductions planned of 70 officers and 70 staff in 2011
| — Comprehensive examination of force structure and resources has been commissioned due to report back in Dec 2009 decisions to be taken regarding resource cuts are dependant on future financial settlements
|
| WM | West Midlands | 8,776
| 823 | 4,443 | 14,042
| — Increase in specific grants (CT) has led to increase in resources
— WFM
| — Recent organisational change programme intent on releasing future savings
— FF-C
| — No information available | — Number of OCUs in the process of being reduced from 21 to 10 realising savings on overheads and management
— Reduction in staff numbers will be likely to reflect cuts in . funding
|
| NE | West Yorkshire | 5,784
| | 4,258 | 10,042
| — WFM
— Increase has been directed to neighbourhood policing and crime & incident management
| — Potential budget gap of £9.4 million and £15.3 million in 2011-12
| — WFM to decrease officer numbers by a small degree (20-50 posts approx)
— Vacancy freeze to reduce police staff posts
| — Vacancy freeze to reduce police staff posts leading to a leaner workforce
— Re-phasing of capital investment programme
— Quest
— Shared services
— Centralising services
— Collaboration opportunities
— VFM reviews
— WFM
— Benchmarking against forces
— Review of employment policies
— Vacancy management
— Vehicle utilisation
|
| SW | Wiltshire | 1,209
| | 1,164 | 2,373
| — WFM 11% increase in police staff (police officers stable)
— Addressing protective services gap
— Redesign of business processes
| — Review of non operational police officer roles to identify WFM opportunities
| — WFM
— No significant changes to the workforce in the current year or 2011
| — Programme of change led by DCC to examine opportunities to cope with spending cuts which includes, collaboration working
— Depending on the severity of future cuts workforce reductions cannot be ruled out
|
| W | Dyfed-Powys | 1,195
| | 779 | 1,974
| — WFM 17% increase in police staff (police officers 3% increase)
— Addressing the gap in protective services
| — Minimum precept of 2.5%
— FF-F
| — Vacancy management
— Whilst it is anticipated that £1.9 million of savings are required, the plan is unclear
| — Future funding implications would undoubtedly affect staffing numbers, however reducing the impact to the front line will be a priority
— Other options include: recruitment freeze, collaboration, procurement, process improvement, invest to save
|
| W | Gwent | 1,431
| | 981 | 2,412
| — WFM 26% increase in police staff (police officers 5% increase)
— Force restructure to single BCU
| — March 2009 force moved to a single BCU structure
— In May 2008 the force froze recruitment of officers and staff to address the serious funding gap projected, 09-12
— Concentration to focus staff movements from back office to front service delivery to include WFM
| — The force has continued with a recruitment programme to return policing numbers back up to 06/07 levels
| — Some PCSO funding is through external partnership sources, it is hoped that this will continue
— Further unexpected cuts will inevitably result in reductions in frontline policing and neighbourhood policing in particular
|
| W | North Wales | 1,603
| 156 | 875 | 2,634
| — Loss 100 (staff and officers—total) in order to address funding gap
— WFM has released officers to address protective services
| — WFM to address funding shortfalls
| — It is inevitable that staff will be cut during 2010-11, firstly to address funding shortfall and also through leaner working practices
| — Force is about to embark on a project using NIM principles to review the business to identify cost savings whilst improving/maintaining performance. A number of tactical solutions will fall out of this process
|
| W | South Wales | 3,120
| | 2,155 | 5,275
| — WFM 16% increase in police staff, 4% decrease in officers (compared to 2004)
| — WFM has been used to maintain frontline services and fill the budget gap and not the planned increases to front line resources
| — WFM
— Vacancy management of around 200 FTE posts
| — Review of force systems/structures/processes to include a range of tactical options to realise savings: estate management, lean systems, procurement, collaboration, HR working practices
|
Notes: | |
| | | |
| | | |
— IMPORTANT: Enquiries have established that forces have interpreted Question ONE in many different ways, and as such these figures cannot be directly compared to Home Office Police Service Strength statistics. The definition for the Home Office returns are very precise, whereas for this return, forces have used their own interpretations such as "budgeted strengths" or "Full Time Equivalents" or "Head Counts". Also some forces have included externally funded posts, agency staff, traffic wardens, designated officers, and other groups not generally included in the Home Office statistics.
— Where PCSO cells are blank, forces have incorporated their numbers into the staff figures.
— FF-F = a force which is supported by the dampening mechanism under the funding formula (floor).
— FF-C = a force which is a loser by the dampening mechanism under the funding formula (ceiling).
— WFM = workforce modernisation, which means police officer roles being civilianised to reduce costs (Generally back office functions).
— DSP funding = dedicated security grant funding for specific purposes
— PA = police authority
— VFM = value for money
— CDO = civilian detention officer (generally replacing officers in custody suites
| | | |
| | | |
| |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
APPENDIX B
| | Year on year % differences (between 31 March strength returns)
| | | |
| | | |
| | | 5 year % Total
|
| | 2004-05
| | 2005-06 |
| 2006-07 | | 2007-08
| | 2008-09 |
| 2004-09 | |
| REGION | FORCE |
Officer | Staff |
Officer | Staff |
Officer | Staff |
Officer | Staff |
Officer | Staff |
Officers | Staff |
E | Bedfordshire |
2.88 | 6.74 | -1.40
| 6.45 | -1.09 | -1.98
| -1.10 | -2.69 | 6.14
| 5.52 | 5.44 | 14.05
|
| E | Cambridgeshire | 0.14
| -0.72 | 2.00 | 7.93
| -3.43 | 2.67 | -1.67
| -3.25 | 6.77 | 10.99
| 3.82 | 17.62 |
| E | Essex | 2.97
| 4.90 | 2.79 | 0.00
| 0.55 | -2.54 | 1.49
| 3.55 | 4.12 | 5.09
| 11.92 | 10.99 |
| E | Hertfordshire | 0.86
| 0.43 | 1.05 | 5.30
| 1.55 | 0.81 | -1.02
| -0.73 | 1.64 | 3.96
| 4.08 | 9.76 |
| E | Norfolk | 2.25
| 1.13 | 0.84 | 8.13
| 0.51 | -0.47 | -2.49
| -0.57 | 9.31 | 1.80
| 10.42 | 10.03 |
| E | Suffolk | 0.69
| 3.04 | -0.99 | 4.92
| 3.23 | -0.70 | -2.53
| -3.90 | -1.30 | 6.63
| -0.90 | 10.00 |
| EM | Derbyshire | 0.00
| 3.01 | -1.16 | -4.81
| -1.12 | 8.57 | 2.62
| 5.15 | 2.94 | 1.74
| 3.27 | 13.65 |
| EM | Leicestershire | 0.26
| 2.58 | -1.45 | 4.45
| -1.11 | 5.75 | -0.58
| 0.09 | 6.83 | 6.65
| 3.95 | 19.52 |
| EM | Lincolnshire | -0.57
| 3.20 | -0.66 | -0.15
| 0.66 | 6.35 | -3.52
| 5.56 | 4.33 | 7.37
| 0.24 | 22.32 |
| EM | Northamptonshire | 2.26
| 11.33 | 3.95 | 3.80
| -2.73 | -0.10 | -1.33
| 1.49 | 4.91 | 12.40
| 7.05 | 28.92 |
| EM | Nottinghamshire | 0.72
| 2.57 | -1.00 | 5.08
| -2.70 | -1.08 | -3.15
| 0.15 | 3.17 | 9.69
| -2.96 | 16.41 |
| L | City of London | 2.70
| 4.56 | -0.80 | 5.37
| -1.73 | 1.59 | -4.33
| -6.27 | -0.49 | -0.67
| -4.65 | 4.58 |
| L | Met Service | 3.28
| 7.67 | -0.57 | 2.03
| 0.57 | 1.30 | 0.99
| 0.49 | 5.15 | 0.65
| 9.42 | 12.14 |
| NE | Cleveland | -0.65
| -2.09 | 0.06 | -6.82
| 2.15 | 2.01 | -2.92
| -1.41 | 5.59 | 3.42
| 4.23 | -4.89 |
| NE | Durham | 1.96
| 22.67 | -1.11 | -0.41
| -0.94 | 3.96 | -4.63
| 7.09 | -1.06 | 13.36
| -5.78 | 46.66 |
| NE | Humberside | 0.77
| 5.62 | -0.27 | 6.09
| 0.13 | 10.57 | -0.49
| 8.24 | -4.78 | 6.93
| -4.64 | 37.46 |
| NE | Northumbria | 0.20
| -0.27 | -1.61 | 11.67
| -1.66 | 2.76 | 0.28
| 8.88 | 4.66 | 11.00
| 1.87 | 34.05 |
| NE | North Yorkshire | 0.92
| 7.41 | 6.03 | 11.96
| 1.10 | 8.57 | -5.68
| -4.34 | -6.41 | 1.48
| -4.05 | 25.07 |
| NE | South Yorkshire | -0.43
| 9.22 | -0.31 | 7.17
| -0.03 | 6.75 | -2.52
| 3.03 | -3.75 | 4.02
| -7.04 | 30.20 |
| NE | West Yorkshire | 6.75
| 8.65 | 0.23 | 5.54
| 0.19 | -3.33 | 1.57
| 5.52 | 1.92 | 7.27
| 10.66 | 23.65 |
| NW | Cheshire | 0.41
| -1.04 | -0.55 | 2.90
| 0.83 | 7.86 | -3.10
| 11.41 | 2.64 | 5.26
| 0.23 | 26.39 |
| NW | Cumbria | 0.82
| 3.55 | -0.16 | 0.27
| 1.14 | 1.50 | -1.29
| 4.04 | 4.56 | 4.92
| 5.07 | 14.28 |
| NW | GMP | -0.01
| -4.32 | -1.02 | 1.48
| -0.90 | 0.51 | 0.56
| 4.90 | 3.80 | 9.25
| 2.42 | 11.82 |
| NW | Lancashire | 0.03
| 1.90 | 0.90 | 2.86
| -3.27 | 2.15 | 4.13
| 6.94 | 3.99 | 2.85
| 5.78 | 16.70 |
| NW | Merseyside | 4.73
| 14.61 | -1.11 | 3.81
| 3.37 | -1.54 | 0.82
| 1.38 | 1.01 | 0.82
| 8.82 | 19.08 |
| SE | Hampshire | 0.51
| 5.36 | -0.48 | 6.82
| 2.40 | 12.15 | 0.29
| 3.23 | 0.11 | -3.21
| 2.83 | 24.35 |
| SE | Kent | 0.28
| -1.72 | 0.36 | 2.87
| 1.81 | -0.31 | -0.55
| 2.28 | 4.25 | 3.98
| 6.16 | 7.10 |
| SE | Surrey | 0.10
| 8.88 | 0.37 | 4.69
| -0.42 | 9.02 | -0.52
| 7.62 | -1.68 | -4.20
| -2.15 | 26.00 |
| SE | Sussex | 0.16
| 7.68 | 1.58 | 2.26
| -0.49 | 0.00 | -1.46
| -1.00 | 5.41 | 5.37
| 5.20 | 14.30 |
| SE | Thames Valley | 1.98
| -0.34 | 2.80 | 6.55
| -0.76 | -0.93 | -2.03
| 0.58 | 4.99 | 4.51
| 6.98 | 10.36 |
| SW | Avon & Somerset |
-0.50 | 0.05 | 0.15
| 3.74 | -0.41 | 6.15
| -1.07 | 3.67 | 0.48
| -4.94 | -1.35 | 8.68
|
| SW | Devon & Cornwall |
2.62 | 5.61 | 3.68
| 2.36 | -0.49 | -1.73
| 0.29 | 4.94 | 2.01
| -16.63 | 8.11 | -5.45
|
| SW | Dorset | 1.19
| 7.05 | 2.41 | 4.20
| 0.47 | 5.99 | -0.67
| -1.44 | 2.02 | 2.61
| 5.43 | 18.41 |
| SW | Gloucestershire | 0.55
| 3.27 | -0.15 | 4.68
| 1.09 | 3.46 | 2.69
| -2.51 | 2.54 | 1.14
| 6.70 | 10.04 |
| SW | Wiltshire | 0.41
| 6.15 | -0.25 | 4.93
| -1.23 | 0.94 | -0.17
| 2.33 | 2.25 | -2.84
| 1.01 | 11.51 |
| W | Dyfed-Powys | 1.21
| 1.53 | 0.68 | 6.59
| -0.42 | 7.07 | 0.34
| 3.14 | 1.35 | 1.28
| 3.16 | 19.60 |
| W | Gwent | 4.81
| 9.38 | 2.02 | 8.87
| 1.77 | 7.48 | -1.27
| 6.21 | -2.44 | 0.00
| 4.88 | 31.93 |
| W | North Wales | 3.06
| 2.12 | -2.12 | 1.73
| -1.61 | -13.95 | -1.57
| 1.98 | 1.28 | 6.33
| -0.96 | -1.79 |
| W | South Wales | 0.06
| 3.92 | -0.55 | 2.19
| 1.04 | 1.04 | -3.12
| 1.03 | -1.47 | 9.71
| -4.04 | 17.89 |
| WM | Staffordshire | 0.62
| 5.58 | -0.35 | -1.51
| 0.70 | -1.38 | -2.58
| 1.71 | -0.81 | 0.46
| -2.42 | 4.86 |
| WM | Warwickshire | 0.30
| 12.38 | 2.08 | 3.22
| 2.62 | 2.46 | -3.97
| 0.80 | -2.26 | 9.38
| -1.24 | 28.25 |
| WM | West Mercia | 0.51
| 7.26 | -0.68 | 4.76
| 2.08 | 3.52 | 1.38
| 1.79 | 1.56 | 4.55
| 4.85 | 21.88 |
| WM | West Midlands | 2.14
| 1.39 | 0.51 | 5.00
| 0.94 | 1.45 | 1.74
| 2.63 | 3.87 | 3.90
| 9.20 | 14.37 |
| Totals | 1.74
| 4.58 | 0.10 |
3.61 | 0.21 | 1.89
| -0.15 | 2.36 |
2.89 | 3.04 | 4.81
| 15.49 |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
