« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 9 COSTS
9.1 This chapter looks at the basic costs associated with the authorisation and policing of dispersal powers. The data was collected from interviews with police officers and from police operational evaluation documents. It considers whether the costs could represent a barrier in future to forces wishing to use the powers powers.
Total Costs
9.2 The legislation requires the authorising police officer to put an advert into a local newspaper and to display notices in conspicuous places within the designated area. In addition to these costs there are costs from police overtime where it is required.
9.3 There are difficulties in establishing the true cost of staff time dedicated to the dispersal operations. Records of police staff time dedicated to policing the location were not always kept. In addition, in some locations the staff dedicated to the location were supplemented by other staff who were asked to "look in" to the area if they were passing. Sometimes staff shifts were restructured so that the locations were covered without a net gain in police time.
9.4 The amount of extra police staff time used was not recorded in many locations. Where information was provided the staff overtime varied from £2,000-£4,500. Some forces had no overtime budgets and had to make the staff time from normal shift policing and re-structured shifts. The extra policing was typically most intensive at the start of the dispersal periods when police used high visibility patrols to make the local community and the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour aware that the powers were now in-force. This intensity of policing was not always necessary after the first few weeks, when the powers became established, and police were able to police the dispersal zones with fewer officers.
9.5 There were costs associated with the production of leaflets and signage as well as newspaper notices required by the legislation. Sometimes these costs were met by the local authority, but in other areas the police paid for these out of their own budgets. The costs of newspaper adverts were around £1,000 but more in some cases. The overall costs of using the powers were estimated to be £5,000-£7,500 for each authorisation.
9.6 The police in some locations said that the costs of notices and newspaper adverts were higher than expected.
9.7 Some police officers in areas researched said that the cost would be not prohibitive to them if they wanted to use the powers again in the same location; if they were convinced that the powers would be appropriate they said that they would be able to get the money from somewhere.
9.8 In one location however, the police had been involved in preparing a dispersal authorisation for a small town nearby, with a designated area covering the town centre. The evidence had been collected and consultation was undertaken but they were unable to proceed because they did not have enough staff to police it.
"…looking at police staffing, for the type of area that it is, there are maybe only 2 cops on, to cover a large area and it's pointless to put a dispersal area on and then not police it…It's a money issue because they would need to pay lots of overtime... you've still got to get staff to volunteer the overtime, so it's staffing and money." Police Constable
Partnership working
9.9 As well as police costs, the dispersal operations often involved support from community safety partners. This support generated costs for partners', including staff costs but also costs associated with the use of mobile CCTV, flexible police teams and the deployment of diversionary services.
9.10 In Glasgow where community safety partners decided to use the 3-month "pre-dispersal" action plans, additional costs were borne by Glasgow Community Safety Services ( GCSS), the organisation set up to address community safety issues throughout the city. The background support offered before, during and after the dispersal powers was not estimated but was estimated to represent a substantial amount of money for GCSS. This included the costs for the additional policing team, youth services, community wardens, deployment of CCTV and the opportunity costs associated with the transfer of these services from other communities to support the dispersal operation.
9.11 The amount of extra support offered to police by Glasgow Community Safety Services ( GCSS), particularly for the dispersal operation in Dennistoun was unusual and there were no other examples of support given on this scale. This support programme included activity before, during and after the powers were used and represented a large commitment for the organisation. In interviews, officials said that their services were deployed on a needs-basis so the authorisation of dispersal powers by police, based on a local concentration of antisocial behaviour, might not match the priorities of GCSS who are responsible for community safety on a citywide level. The costs of the support programme would be an important factor in a discussion about the future authorisation of dispersal powers in the city.
Summary
9.12 Overall, the police costs were seen as being significant but not prohibitive. Police and residents believed that the powers had brought about significant improvements in quality of life and that this outcome itself provided value for money even if the improvement was only temporary. It is clear that the relief provided to residents lasted for longer than the three months of the dispersal area designation.
"Six grand for 3 months peace and quiet…it's nothing" Police, Sergeant
9.13 In some of the locations, the antisocial behaviour problems were the subject of so much police attention that they were locally conceived as being one of the main priorities for police. This priority made it easier for police to justify using their funds in support of the dispersal operations.
9.14 Apart from the basic costs of leaflets, adverts and public notices the extent of other costs depended heavily on the scale of the problem and the aims of the police operations. Larger, more populous areas had greater staffing requirements. The police were able in most locations to organise police shifts to cover the extra staffing requirements of the dispersal operations. Most forces also found that they were able to reduce the amount of police staff coverage after the first few weeks of the dispersal order when the operations had settled in and groups had stopped congregating in the dispersal areas.
9.15 The experience in Glasgow highlights that much greater costs can be involved when the police dispersal powers are accompanied by a wider programme of diversionary engagement with the perpetrator group.
« Previous | Contents | Next »