Does bigger mean better when it comes to police forces?

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, the country’s most senior police officer, recently argued for fewer, larger police forces. A long-standing idea motivated by the need for financial savings and improved performance. He suggests cutting overheads, which should be possible, but to a lesser extent than perhaps hoped, as the upfront costs of reorganisation would be substantial and take a considerable time to realise.

There would certainly be benefits and efficiencies from centralising IT right across policing, with one set of agreed systems, rather than 43 individual solutions to the same problem. But, this can be done now if ministers had the appetite, and wouldn’t require a distraction from the day job of fighting crime that a wholescale reorganisation would create.

However, and more importantly, the assumption that larger forces inherently perform better is flawed with little evidence to support this notion. Large and small forces alike have been in ‘special measures’, showing that size doesn’t protect against poor performance. Extra resources may indeed offer short-term improvement, but real, lasting progress comes from good leadership at every level.

In the military, I spent almost a third of my time undertaking education and professional development. Police officers, by contrast, receive relatively little leadership and management training, often being promoted without proper preparation or support. They’re expected to learn on the job or by osmosis; an unreliable method.

Another challenge with larger forces is Council Tax. In Gloucestershire, nearly 50% of our funding comes from this source. Other forces get more government funding, meaning less burden on local taxpayers. Merging forces with different funding models would be divisive, with wealthier areas bailing out poorer ones. This issue has hindered past merger attempts, like those involving Devon & Cornwall and Dorset. Smaller forces may struggle with sudden crime waves but generally have lower crime rates, stronger identities, and deeper understanding of community needs. Larger forces often prioritise urban crime, leaving rural areas underserved.

Rather than sweeping reorganisation, the Government should modernise the outdated funding formula, which unfairly penalises rural communities, expecting them to pay more for fewer resources. Funding should reward good leadership and crime prevention, the smartest route to affordable reform.