Crime data recording scrutiny

Report: 7
Date: 28 February 2008
By: the Chief Executive

Summary

This report summarises the findings of the crime data recording scrutiny.

A. Recommendation

That members agree the content and recommendations outlined in the final draft of the report.

B. Supporting information

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) continue to be concerned about the accuracy of MPS crime recording. Following an approach by the MPS, the MPA decided to undertake a scrutiny. Terms of reference were agreed to assess:

• The compliance of crime recording processes with legislative, investigative and customer requirements.
• The extent to which crime data meets needs.
• The suitability of oversight and management of the processes.

2. The scrutiny commenced in September 2007 and utilised desk research, panel interviews, face-to-face interviews and questionnaires. In order to ensure a speedy turnaround for the report on this scrutiny it was agreed that the work would focus on key issues, but would also identify potential future scrutiny work or performance related areas.

3. Work has already been carried out to address some of the crime recording and data accuracy problems raised by the MPA, MPS and Audit Commission. For example, a Data Accuracy Team (DAT) has been established which contributes considerably to the MPS’s ability to improve the quality of crime recording and offer independent advice; a Territorial Policing (TP) Crime Management Unit has been established; the Directorate of Information (DOI) work includes development of data quality metrics and exception reporting; and a Crime Recording Oversight Group (CROG) has been set up that reports to the MPS Performance Board on data quality issues.

4. The MPA is also pleased to note that, following the production of the initial draft report on the scrutiny, the MPS has already submitted a preliminary plan of action. This plan addresses many of the issues raised in the report and should be further developed to include timetables and resource implications to allow its progress to be monitored by the MPA.

5. A summary of the key findings, conclusions and recommendations follows.

6. Findings

Structures and supervision

• Supervision of crime records is sometimes inadequate and often falls to the Crime Management Unit (CMU) in the absence of another appropriate supervisor.
• Current line management arrangements of the Data Accuracy Team (DAT) may cause some conflicts of interests. Consideration should be given to more independent line management of both the DAT and the Force Crime Registrar (FCR).
• Interviewees felt that the work of the DAT and the FCR would benefit from a direct link into management board.
• Crime Recording Oversight Group (CROG) has become an executive, rather than advisory board removing decision-making responsibilities from the FCR. It was felt that the CROG would benefit from an independent chair.
• Interviewees questioned the appropriateness of current CMU line management arrangements. It was felt that centralised line management, or even physical relocation, would address this.
• Recent reductions in external auditing may result in a fall in data quality standards.
• The MPS internal audit capacity could be increased with the assistance of the MPA Internal Audit (IA) team, Audit Commission and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).
• Data quality should be considered throughout all audits and oversight of police performance, not just those specifically focused on data quality.

Policy and processes

• Crime recording seems to be focused more towards meeting Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) than the needs of policing.
• The MPS need to prioritise the focus on data quality at a very basic level e.g. ensuring the correct address or house number is recorded.
• For many the purpose of crime recording was disproportionately focused on performance measurement rather than investigation and intelligence.
• Both Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU) and central Senor Management Teams (SMT) need to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to data accuracy and quality.
• There was an overwhelming call from interviewees for both the Notifiable Offence List (NOL) and HOCRs to be reviewed.
• Interviewees highlighted the often problematic disparity between National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS), HOCRs and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) charging standards.
• The National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) and National Incident Category List (NICL) codes should be implemented fully. A significant proportion of police activity is not crime related and information around this is currently not being captured accurately.
• Local policies are often not verified with the FCR until ‘found out’.

Training and resources

• Concerns were highlighted around call handling targets focusing on time to answer calls rather than quality.
• Many interviewees felt that the quality and provision of training for officers and staff, particularly those in the CMU and Central Communications Command (CCC) , was inadequate.
• Providing the same level of training for both officers and staff in CMUs was inappropriate. Staff require more training than officers in legal definitions and legislation.
• Training should be continual and for all levels but be developed in such a way that regular mass retraining is not required.
• Centralising crime recording functions may make training issues more manageable.

System failure and conflicts

• Interviewees stated that there was some pressure applied to CMU staff within boroughs that affected the accuracy of crime recording. This was often related to pressure to achieve targets.
• Many MPS Information Technology (IT) systems are outdated and struggling to meet modern IT requirements. Examples of this include the current Computer Aided Despatch (CAD) system based on an airline baggage handling system and the resource intensive work required to allow MPS systems to communicate with each other at a basic level. The failure of MPS IT systems to fully integrate is not as a result of lack of work by MPS officers and staff but a consequence of outdated IT on which the systems rely. The IT shortfall should be fully identified, building on the work already carried out by DoI. Implementation of the required changes will be reliant on sufficient resource allocation for the IT improvement and for the corresponding changes to MPS business process. This should be addressed to allow the police to deal with the complexities of crime recording and investigation in London.
• Interviewees highlighted a number of consequences of inaccurate crime recording. For example, the inability to tackle crime fully without a complete picture of what is occurring, which might lead to compromised officer and public safety and the quality of service offered to victim.

Conclusions

7. All interviewees appeared to agree that there was no single solution to the issues raised by the scrutiny. There was general consensus that:

• The MPS should establish the costs against all of the benefits of improvements or changes to crime recording processes.
• Knowledge gaps in crime recording and responsibilities across the MPS should be addressed.
• The NOL and NCRS are confusing and needed to be reviewed.
• The MPA and MPS needed to establish and understand all of the purposes of crime recording, consider whether the current system and resources meets needs and make changes as required.

Recommendations

8. The following recommendations have been made by the scrutiny:

• Recommendation 1. The MPA and MPS need to prioritise their focus on the improvement of basic data quality and ensure that officer and staff training adequately addresses the needs of the system. The need for data accuracy should not focus solely on compliance with external standards.
• Recommendation 2. The DAT and the FCR’s lines of accountability should be changed to ensure both greater independence and higher-level management input. CMU line management should be made independent of BOCU line management.
• Recommendation 3. The MPS should fully implement NSIR and the NICL codes.
• Recommendation 4. The MPA and MPS should work with the Home Office to facilitate a full review of the NOL and NCRS.
• Recommendation 5. The supervision of crime recording processes should be strengthened and the CROG should be either independently chaired or report regularly to the MPA lead member for data quality.
• Recommendation 6. A robust, risk-based crime recording audit system should be developed and maintained with appropriate resource support.
• Recommendation 7. CCC targets and resource allocation should be reviewed to focus on quality of service provision.
• Recommendation 8. The MPS should expedite the pilots into the centralisation of crime recording.
• Recommendation 9. The MPS SMT should ensure that boroughs systematically inform the FCR of local policies before implementing them.
• Recommendation 10. The MPS should conduct a review of Merlin to ensure there are no offences on the system that should be recorded as a crime on the Crime Report Information System (CRIS).
• Recommendation 11. IT provision should be subject to further scrutiny. The MPS should ensure that its systems are allocated sufficient resources to meet both current needs and to address future needs.

9. The full scrutiny report is attached at appendix 1.

C. Race and equality impact

1. In order to assess whether the proposed scrutiny into crime data recording would disproportionality impact on any groups, an equality impact assessment was conducted (see appendix 2).

2. It is hoped that the scrutiny will lead to improved crime recording processes and practices. Data quality will improve which, in turn, may lead to better victim care, better intelligence-led policing (including more informed stops and searches) and a police service generally better informed and able to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour.

3. Please see appendix 2 for more information.

D. Financial implications

The development of improved IT systems will require considerable resource. The costs involved should be regarded against the potential costs of system failure, including a reduced ability to: track and monitor offending or offenders, provide improved customer service and victim care, meet legislative requirements and investigate crime.

E. Background papers

• Appendix 1: Crime Data Recording Scrutiny
• Appendix 2: Equality Impact Assessment – Crime Data Recording Scrutiny

F. Contact details

Report author: Jane Owen, Head of Planning & Performance Unit, MPA

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback