Police in England and Wales to get more money – but increasing funding won’t necessarily mean less crime
Ian Dewar Photography/Shutterstock
Police spending will rise by a real-terms 2.3% per year between now and 2028-29, the government announced in its latest spending review, drawn from local council tax. The government says this will help its mission to put 13,000 neighbourhood police on the streets, and “keep communities safe”.
Police say this is far from enough to meet the government’s ambitions, particularly on cutting knife crime and violence against women, and that it is likely to be “swallowed up” by pay rises for police.
The awkward truth, however, is that marginal changes to police funding and hiring make little difference to crime either way. Austerity cuts of around 20% to policing budgets in the 2010s were accompanied by declining crime, including domestic violence and antisocial behaviour.
Widespread security improvements were responsible for the close to 90% reductions in many crime types. For example, engine immobilisers prevent car theft, and secure household doors and windows prevent burglary.
Crime has been declining across developed countries for decades. But those countries vary greatly in policing practices and funding, so it is clear more policing was not the cause.
American policing researcher pioneer David Bayley wrote in 1994: “The police do not prevent crime. This is one of the best kept secrets of modern life. Experts know it, the police know it, but the public does not know it. Yet the police pretend they are society’s best defense against crime and continually argue that if they are given more resources, especially personnel, they will be able to protect communities against crime. This is a myth.”
This does not mean we don’t need police – we do. If there were no police, crime rates would soar. The issue here is diminishing marginal returns (we’re at the level where more funding doesn’t have the same effect).
But it means the spending review debate had little to do with crime prevention. Rather, it was about how senior staff in public services routinely seek more for their departments. And following the spending review, police chiefs gave themselves an escape clause by claiming the increase is insufficient.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.
In recent years, we’ve learned problem-solving policing can reduce some crimes in some contexts. For example, burglary at construction sites can often be theft of building materials and tools, so the crime problem can be reduced through improved site management (rather than just more arrests).
However, problem-solving is not easy and so is not widely applied. Simply patrolling hotspots does not affect the crime opportunity structure (factors that tempt, facilitate or precipitate a particular cluster of crimes).
Additionally, all types of crime, except homicide, are more likely to recur, and relatively soon, after prior victimisation. And while policing to prevent repeat victimisation can reduce crime, it has fallen by the wayside in recent years.
A recent review by crime scientist Shannon Linning and colleagues examined the effect of more police hiring and more arrests on crime, concluding: “When a sensational crime happens, residents demand action. Often someone will cry for more police and more arrests … neither approach is likely to be helpful.”
This makes it rather awkward that the government has recently committed to recruiting 13,000 additional neighbourhood police.
Since most people don’t know the limitations of policing, both the government and the police have been able to maintain the illusion that more police means less crime. Academic police researchers will rarely admit it in case it risks their funding, and the media enjoy a perennially newsworthy topic. Taxpayers foot the bill as well as the emotional, financial and other costs of crime.
How to stop crime
There is, however, some room for optimism. What we have learned from the long-term international crime drop and dozens of small-scale successes against different crime types is that reducing crime opportunities is the best approach. With some strategic adjustment, there is much that police and government can do.
A particular focus for the government and police should be encouraging businesses to take more responsibility for crime. Knife manufacturers and retailers should be involved in introducing a ban on pointed kitchen knives, the most common homicide weapon in England and Wales. The gradual approach over many years that research (in which I was involved) recommended is too long: it should be done within this government’s term.
A lot of other crimes, including computer-enabled crimes, are generated, facilitated or hosted by businesses. Internet service providers and network providers benefit from advertising and payments, including when they are being used for crime (from stalking and sexual victimisation to fraud and terrorism).
Manufacturers benefit from theft of phones and other products that need replacing. Online marketplaces profit from usage and advertising when stolen goods are sold, which inadvertently encourages shoplifting, theft and robbery. Online banking and financial services also host significant amounts of fraud, and are now sometimes required to pay up to £85,000 compensation to victims.
Government and police should develop a portfolio of incentives and disincentives to promote private sector crime prevention, to include regulation and market-based incentives. When businesses have an economic incentive they are tremendously efficient at preventing crime, as car manufacturers showed by improving security that brought 90% reductions in car crime.
Reducing crime opportunities is also the best way to stop criminality. When young people do not get involved in easy crimes like shoplifting, they do not progress to further crime, including violence against women and girls.
In short, extra police funding will not reduce crime. A shift in strategy is what is really needed.
Graham Farrell receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.
