Practitioner's perspective: police cuts
A former Assistant Chief Constable of a British police force writes on the realities of police cuts.
"There are probably several key points to make on pay, conditions and in particular overtime for serving officers.
There is no doubt that, as ACPO broadly agrees, any review of working practices, national and local structures, reducing bureaucracy and the use of improved technology will assist in developing more effective ways of providing service. This has been demonstrated on many occasions in the past. It does not always follow, therefore, that fewer police means a lesser service — it may lead to less visibility in some cases, and that is where more intelligent deployment is needed. Simply utilising staff to patrol beats by rota is long gone.
A need must be identified first, and options for how best to meet that need must follow. This is the basis of the National Intelligence Model and is widely accepted as common sense. This approach also requires an educated public willing to help itself rather than call on the police at every opportunity. The police and ministers could do much more to manage expectations and public perceptions in this respect.
Where human resources are required, shift patterns and structures must be interrogated: if surveillance is needed for fifteen hours, do you use overtime for one team or deploy two? Training, staffing, vehicle and operational costs all come into play. The use of human resource should no longer be the first option; there needs to be a considered assessment of the best tactical approach to meet the threat.
When human sources are the only option — in VIP protection, for example, where trust, detailed knowledge of the subject and continuity are essential — this will always come at a cost. The highest earners in any force, usually the Metropolitan Police, are likely to be those working very long hours to protect royalty or high-value targets. The options for cost savings here are limited: doubling staff, reducing the visible profile of VIPs, or absorbing the costs.
There is also a cultural challenge. Policing can be dangerous, and staff stick together to combat that danger. Reducing teams causes unrest and feelings of vulnerability. It is also difficult to argue for change when the existing model appears to work.
Lastly — and this is often overlooked — there is the question of rewarding staff who operate in environments that are hostile and carry a risk of corruption. In the 1960s, police pay was poor and corruption was rife. Improved pay helped reduce corruption cases significantly. Well-paid public servants are less likely to be drawn to corrupt acts."