Most police authorities unprepared for budget cuts, says watchdog

Few police authorities are well positioned or well prepared to deliver value for money at a time when major budget cuts are required by the Comprehensive Spending Review, a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has claimed.

Police authorities will be responsible for two out of four budget rounds covered by the CSR before – under government plans – they are abolished in 2012 and replaced by directly-elected police and crime commissioners. Police funding is to be cut by 20% over the four-year period.

The HMIC report – Police Governance in Austerity – called for police authorities to focus on setting an affordable direction for policing and “probing costs and alternatives that offer better value for money for the public”.

It said action was needed now if authorities were to succeed, adding that each authority should consider where it stands in relation to the characteristics showed by their top-performing peers.

But HMIC added: “The reality remains that few authorities are well positioned, or well prepared, to do what is needed to ensure smart direction and value for money. And the current range of incentives and support for police authorities may be insufficient.

“There is uncertainty as to whether police authorities will be able to meet the combined challenges of making tough decisions on spending reductions, while at the same time preparing for the smooth handover to the new governance arrangements.”

The report expressed “real concern” that as a result police authorities would not be able to find alternative approaches and so will not be able to protect public facing policing services.

In compiling the report, HMIC inspected 22 authorities – just four were judged to have performed well in both setting strategic direction and ensuring value for money. “Effective performance in both these functions is critical given the financial challenges going forward,” it argued.

HMIC identified a number of characteristics that it associated with good governance. These were:

• Greater role clarity: “authorities that performed well are clear on their role. They act as a pilot as well as a watchdog where necessary and switch as circumstances demand”
• Clearer division of responsibilities with the chief constable: the respective roles of chair and chief constable are “understood and respected”
• Distinctive value for money challenge: “this starts with police authorities making full use of benchmarking information on costs and outcomes. However, it goes further, with better performing authorities focusing clearly on what the police are doing with the money across the full spectrum of policing activity”.
• Balanced performance: “stronger performing police authorities demonstrate a willingness to balance responsibility for both local and national duties”.

The report added: “Overall the more successful authorities have a good focus on strategic direction and value for money, the wisdom to select chief officers who are thinking ahead, and have clarity about the chief officers’ responsibility to lead, manage and direct the force.”

HMIC said characteristics associated with poor performance included a ‘traditional’ interpretation of the role, confusion over the chief constable’s remit and a lack of focus on key priorities.