> Generally speaking police leadership likes to justify their jobs with "crime numbers are going down"
If that's what happening, sure, they use that to support “we're doing good and therefore should be given more resources to do more good.”
If crime stats are flat or going down, they use that to argue “we are stretched to thin to effectively reduce crime, and therefore need more resources.”
The internal process inside the engine cares though. Police Chief's certainly care about the crime rate going down because they answer to whoever put them in their position depending on the city and that person or group cares about the number going down.
The police captain cares because they want to be picked as the police chief one day and a "crime went down in my precinct" narrative helps that.
The Sheriff cares because in the US that is an elected position, and "crime rate keeps going up with this Sheriff" is easy ammo for them to lose their position in an election.
The police engine will produce the same output either way. (which is a great sign of necessary reform) But the people driving the engine would prefer it to be because of the rate going down that they ask for more money. And the people who put them in that position would prefer thats the reason they are asking for more money as well.
Interestingly enough public education works the same way. Schools failing? Not enough resources! School succeeding? We need more to do more or to keep the status quo of doing well! Pretty much every government body has this feedback mechanism. Every organization for that matters. No large scale org ever says "we have enough resources right now thanks".
If that's what happening, sure, they use that to support “we're doing good and therefore should be given more resources to do more good.”
If crime stats are flat or going down, they use that to argue “we are stretched to thin to effectively reduce crime, and therefore need more resources.”
The input is irrelevant, the output is constant.