A Serious Case - Police priorities in criminal investigations

One of the police’s statutory tasks is to investigate crime and those suspected of committing it. The police are also responsible for maintaining public order, assisting people in need and performing other law enforcement tasks. In 2024, the police spent € 8.1 billion on performing these statutory tasks. In this audit, the Netherlands Court of Audit calculated the amount of public money and police capacity used for each of these statutory tasks. We also audited the extent to which police investigation priorities take account of crimes’ societal harm.

Investigation priorities only partly targeted at serious crime

Investigation priorities are determined by the Minister of Justice and Security and the Public Prosecution Service. The Court of Audit devised a Crime Harm Index (CHI) to investigate whether these priorities match the crimes considered to be of greatest severity and that, therefore, cause the highest degree of societal harm. We conclude that this is only partly the case. The Minister of Justice and Security, for example, has prioritised cybercrime and other online crimes, whereas these crimes have only low or moderate CHI scores. The same applies to certain crimes that undermine society, or where perpetrators are caught in the act, and that have been prioritised by the Public Prosecution Service. These include shoplifting and the possession of hard or soft drugs.

10,000 serious crimes reported were not processed, even if prioritised

The Court of Audit concludes that, in 2024, over 10,000 reported crimes regarded in the CHI as serious were not processed by the police. Of these, 1,600 had been prioritised by the Public Prosecution Service or the minister. Prioritised crimes that were not processed included 550 violent crimes, 200 sexual crimes, 750 other high-impact crimes and, lastly, 100 cases of crimes that undermine society. In addition, certain serious crimes were not regarded as a priority, including 3,450 cases of aggravated burglary and 5,050 other crimes such as identity fraud, arson and blackmail.

Almost a quarter of serious crimes reported are not processed

The Crime Harm Index (CHI) is one way of indicating crimes’ relative severity, based on the sentences imposed on first-time offenders under adult criminal law. The method used to create the index expresses the severity of a crime as the average (median) number of days of detention imposed for committing that crime. In other words, a crime’s severity is based on judgments issued by a court or the public prosecutor. Crimes of greater severity attract higher sentences and, therefore, a higher CHI score. The severity of the crime is multiplied by the number of reported cases of that crime to calculate its total societal harm. An explanation of the methodology used for the CHI can be found in Appendix 1.

Of the 10,000 cases of serious crimes reported in 2024, 7,000 were immediately rejected, while processing of a further 3,000 was discontinued at an early stage owing to a lack of investigating capacity at the police or the Public Prosecution Service. We also note regional differences. The Rotterdam police, for example, immediately chose not to investigate a relatively high number (19%) of serious crimes reported in comparison with their counterparts in East-Netherlands (12%) and Limburg (11%). The opposite applies with regard to reported incidents of serious crimes that were not investigated owing to a lack of capacity. This occurred most often in Limburg (13%), less often in East-Netherlands (8%) and least of all in Rotterdam (7%). The extent to which the police process or can process a reported crime consequently varies, depending on the police force to which the crime is reported.

Some investigation results are unknown

The police have no information available on the outcomes of the 11,500 major national or international criminal investigations carried out by over 12,300 FTE at district, regional and national criminal investigation units. The relevant registration system cannot generate management information on the type of crimes investigated, on the required or deployed capacity or on the results achieved, or not achieved, by the police. The Court of Audit is surprised that the police do not have access to such basic information, given that assessing efficiency and effectiveness is largely impossible without this information.

Serious crimes assigned to frontline teams

Owing to a lack of capacity at district, regional and national criminal investigation units, responsibility for investigating serious crimes is increasingly being assigned to frontline teams. This includes reports of high-impact crimes such as home burglaries, robberies, sexual offences and violent crimes. The Justice and Security Inspectorate (2025) previously concluded that the frontline teams were not properly equipped to handle these more serious, complex crimes.

Insufficient insight into police spending on each statutory task

The police’s administration system does not break down the costs of performing each separate statutory task. The Court of Audit estimates that the police spent € 3.3 billion (41%) on criminal investigations, € 2.6 billion (33%) on maintaining public order and safety, € 1.9 billion (24%) on assisting people in need and € 0.3 billion (4%) on other tasks. This estimate is higher than the figures previously reported. It is concerning that neither the minister nor the commissioner can state or establish how much public money is spent on each of these statutory tasks. This applies both with a view to deploying the police strategically and efficiently, and the need for the budget to be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Choices without insight

Investigation priorities are determined by the Minister of Justice and Security and the Public Prosecution Service. Within these frameworks, the police then have freedom to make choices. However, putting these priorities into operational practice can be difficult for the police. Not only do they have to decide what to investigate, but also whether to focus on criminal investigations or on other statutory tasks. Their choices can include deciding, for example, to have more police on street surveillance or to focus on identifying and arresting suspects. The Court of Audit questions how the various authorities can make effective and efficient decisions if they lack insight into the results of criminal investigations and into how personnel and resources are deployed in performing statutory tasks.

Why did we audit police priorities?

Our purpose in performing this audit is to provide insight into the money spent and capacity deployed by the police on criminal investigations. We also audited the extent to which choices made by the police take account of crimes’ impact on society. In doing so, we take account of how responsibilities for deploying police officers are divided and the policy framework within which the police perform their tasks.

Any feedback on this audit?

We welcome any feedback on our audits. What do you think of this report? If you have any questions or want any further information, please e-mail us at feedback@rekenkamer.nl. You can be sure that we will read all e-mails carefully.