Managing Police Investigations into Burglary

Abstract

This paper reports on findings from a Home Office-funded research project on the management of police investigations. While the original study concerned itself with strategies for dealing with burglary and auto crime, this paper focuses specifically on how the police manage burglary offences. It evaluates police detectives' responses to questions asked in interviews about which actions they felt to be of greatest benefit in achieving a number of pre-defined outcomes. The authors sought to evaluate police results in terms of the recovery of stolen property, victim reassurance and the gathering of information for the purposes of criminal intelligence, in addition to the more conventional measures of success — detections and arrests. This paper will be of interest both to academics wishing to know more about the development of investigative practice, as well as to practitioners seeking a more comprehensive means of evaluating performance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

A number of reports outlined shortcomings in practice and outlined options for change, see Home Office Circulars 114/83 and 106/88. Also the Sheehy Report (1994, HMSO) Regarding public opinion, see MORI (1994) ‘British Public Opinion’, London; MORI.

Between 1982 and 1992 the Home Office indicated that ‘recorded crime has risen by 74% while the proportion of crimes cleared up has fallen from 37% to 26%’ (Audit Commission, 1993, p. 1).

Rises in crime were taking place against a backdrop of increased police spending in real terms of 43% (Audit Commission, 1993, p. 7). It was noted that ‘During the 1980s and early 1990s pay awards were usually set at a level that was double that of inflation. Police officers were, as a result, to become an expensive resource as the levels of remuneration, when added to housing allowances and other costs, began to push the total spending on police manpower towards the four billion pounds mark per year’ (Loveday, 1993, p. 134).

Notably, the Sheehy Inquiry into Police Responsibility and Rewards (Sheehy, 1993), the White Paper on Police Reform (Home Office, 1993) and the Review of Police Core and Ancillary Tasks (Home Office, 1995).

One publication noted that ‘Over the past ten years there have been over 22 major programmes of legislation; 531 Home Office circulars (and rising); 11 Audit Commission police papers; The Operational Policing Review; The Quality of Service Initiative and the Statement of Common Purpose & Values; The Value for Money Programme, including performance indicators and devolved financial management; organisational restructuring; and The Citizens Charter’ (The Police Journal, 1993, p. 48).

Investigating officers are commonly classified as either ‘first’ or ‘second’ investigators; the former are usually uniformed, the latter CID. Traditionally, the first investigator at a burglary would carry out a preliminary investigation at the scene before passing the case to CID for ‘specialist’ investigation. Currently, however, there has been a clear shift in the division of investigative duties, away from CID and towards the uniformed branch.

Among the management ideas brought across to policing was that of ‘Management By Objectives’ (MBO) or, as it came to be known within the service, ‘Policing By Objectives’ (PBO). Originally introduced by Peter Drucker, and later taken up by Douglas McGregor, MBO involves the setting, within a systems framework, of goals for each department and individual within the organisation. These goals would not only form the basis of planning for and managing the organisation, but would also provide a quantitative means of assessing performance.

For an account of actions taken by first investigators, see Gill

Hart

Livingstone

Stevens

(1996) ‘The Crime Allocation System: Police Investigations into Burglary and Auto Crime’, Police Research Group Series: Police Operations against Crime, Home Office, London.

Some investigations resulted in incidental detections for other offences.

10.

See Gill

Hart

Livingstone

Stevens

(1996) ‘The Crime Allocation System: Police Investigations into Burglary and Auto Crime’, Police Research Group Series: Police Operations against Crime, Home Office, London.