Callum Price is Director of Communications at the IEA, and a former special adviser in the Ministry of Justice and Home Office
To tackle crime, you need to go to the places where crime happens. It really is that straightforward. At least part of it is.
Crime is not evenly distributed, it happens in some areas more than others, and in some places quite a lot. Targeting policing resource in the areas it happens the most can have a serious effect on the overall crime rate in a wider area. To do that, we do need more ‘bobbies on the beat’. Community policing is about having a visible and active policing presence, with knowledge of their areas and relationships with local people, to be able to prevent and tackle neighbourhood crime and antisocial behaviour.
It therefore makes sense that the Government is promising to roll out 13000 community police officers. It is a welcome step, and the focus on community policing more broadly is the right move. Done right, it can cut crime and make people feel safer, given the effect of the visibility of officers and the crimes they prevent. But the government’s promise to hire more officers will not be enough.
Firstly, it is not a promise to hire 13000 new police officers. There are only 3000 new full-time police officers included in the plan. The rest of the number is made up of 4000 community support officers (full time officers, but without full arrest powers), 3000 special constables (full arrest powers but part-time volunteers), and 3000 officers who are already part of the government’s plans, to be directed towards community policing.
Second, as we saw with the previous government’s drive to hire 20,000 police officers, overly prescriptive Home Office initiatives for hiring processes can have unintended consequences. The police already have a problem with reverse civilianisation. If forces get more money from the government to hire new officers, but not for other necessary staff, the ensuing result is warranted officers in ‘back office’ roles. These back-office roles are often vital but require different skills to those of a police officer who is qualified to arrest people.
A better step would be to trust Chief Constables to run their force in the way their area needs. The money should be made available for forces to hire whatever staff they need, rather than the numbers and breakdown proscribed from Marsham Street. The Home Secretary can still drive a focus on community policing by being clear with Chief Constables – though many will be focused on it regardless.
The police are operationally independent, but they listen to what the government wants. They are not the judiciary, who defend their independence ferociously. Chief Constables won’t arrest someone if a politician asks them to of course, but if the politician in charge of their budget wants to see violence against women and girls prioritised, retail crime tackled, or community policing put at the heart of their plans then they will listen and aim to deliver.
However, the bigger problem at the heart of the government’s plan is an all too familiar one. It does the headline grabbing stuff around the edges, but risks shying away from the necessary but difficult fundamental reform. In criminal justice, the clearest and most pressing fundamental challenge is simple.
Where do we put criminals after arresting them?
The prisons crisis that reached a head over the summer has been boiling for a long time. It is a result of successive governments of all stripes failing to build enough capacity. Prison building is slowed down for a multitude of reasons. Prisons are not as politically appealing as hospitals or roads – there was no protecting the MoJ budget during the austerity years like there was for the NHS. And few people want them near to them (incorrectly, in my view). They often come under fierce local and political opposition.
Ultimately prisons are yet another victim of our absurd planning system and inability to build anything in this country.
The Prime Minister made promising noises about taking on the nimbys and the regulators that slow down building in Britain. He promised 150 major national infrastructure projects and speed up decision making. This sounds promising, but we shouldn’t hold our breath. Promises like these have been made before and rarely followed through when the going gets tough, opposition gets louder, and political capital runs low.
The housebuilding and growth targets in the Prime Minister’s milestones exhibit the same bottlenecks. Admirable targets, but meaningless unless the key issues that undermines progress in all of these areas are tackled. Lip service is paid to reform, but it should be goal number one.
More bobbies on the beat would be a welcome sight. But if they don’t have anywhere to put the criminals they collar, our communities won’t be any safer after all. The Government must follow through on the noises it is making to deliver serious reform, on public safety and beyond.
Callum Price is Director of Communications at the IEA, and a former special adviser in the Ministry of Justice and Home Office
To tackle crime, you need to go to the places where crime happens. It really is that straightforward. At least part of it is.
Crime is not evenly distributed, it happens in some areas more than others, and in some places quite a lot. Targeting policing resource in the areas it happens the most can have a serious effect on the overall crime rate in a wider area. To do that, we do need more ‘bobbies on the beat’. Community policing is about having a visible and active policing presence, with knowledge of their areas and relationships with local people, to be able to prevent and tackle neighbourhood crime and antisocial behaviour.
It therefore makes sense that the Government is promising to roll out 13000 community police officers. It is a welcome step, and the focus on community policing more broadly is the right move. Done right, it can cut crime and make people feel safer, given the effect of the visibility of officers and the crimes they prevent. But the government’s promise to hire more officers will not be enough.
Firstly, it is not a promise to hire 13000 new police officers. There are only 3000 new full-time police officers included in the plan. The rest of the number is made up of 4000 community support officers (full time officers, but without full arrest powers), 3000 special constables (full arrest powers but part-time volunteers), and 3000 officers who are already part of the government’s plans, to be directed towards community policing.
Second, as we saw with the previous government’s drive to hire 20,000 police officers, overly prescriptive Home Office initiatives for hiring processes can have unintended consequences. The police already have a problem with reverse civilianisation. If forces get more money from the government to hire new officers, but not for other necessary staff, the ensuing result is warranted officers in ‘back office’ roles. These back-office roles are often vital but require different skills to those of a police officer who is qualified to arrest people.
A better step would be to trust Chief Constables to run their force in the way their area needs. The money should be made available for forces to hire whatever staff they need, rather than the numbers and breakdown proscribed from Marsham Street. The Home Secretary can still drive a focus on community policing by being clear with Chief Constables – though many will be focused on it regardless.
The police are operationally independent, but they listen to what the government wants. They are not the judiciary, who defend their independence ferociously. Chief Constables won’t arrest someone if a politician asks them to of course, but if the politician in charge of their budget wants to see violence against women and girls prioritised, retail crime tackled, or community policing put at the heart of their plans then they will listen and aim to deliver.
However, the bigger problem at the heart of the government’s plan is an all too familiar one. It does the headline grabbing stuff around the edges, but risks shying away from the necessary but difficult fundamental reform. In criminal justice, the clearest and most pressing fundamental challenge is simple.
Where do we put criminals after arresting them?
The prisons crisis that reached a head over the summer has been boiling for a long time. It is a result of successive governments of all stripes failing to build enough capacity. Prison building is slowed down for a multitude of reasons. Prisons are not as politically appealing as hospitals or roads – there was no protecting the MoJ budget during the austerity years like there was for the NHS. And few people want them near to them (incorrectly, in my view). They often come under fierce local and political opposition.
Ultimately prisons are yet another victim of our absurd planning system and inability to build anything in this country.
The Prime Minister made promising noises about taking on the nimbys and the regulators that slow down building in Britain. He promised 150 major national infrastructure projects and speed up decision making. This sounds promising, but we shouldn’t hold our breath. Promises like these have been made before and rarely followed through when the going gets tough, opposition gets louder, and political capital runs low.
The housebuilding and growth targets in the Prime Minister’s milestones exhibit the same bottlenecks. Admirable targets, but meaningless unless the key issues that undermines progress in all of these areas are tackled. Lip service is paid to reform, but it should be goal number one.
More bobbies on the beat would be a welcome sight. But if they don’t have anywhere to put the criminals they collar, our communities won’t be any safer after all. The Government must follow through on the noises it is making to deliver serious reform, on public safety and beyond.