PNC data quality and timeliness

Report: 6
Date: 6 February 2004
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report is an update on the MPS position on PNC data quality and timeliness in relation to two national targets relating to court results and creation of charge /summons details.

A. Recommendations

That the Committee notes:

1. the current position of the MPS in relation to the charge/summons and court results target and actions been taken.
2. the changes to these targets currently being developed by CENTREX on behalf of the Home Office as part of the Police Reform Act 2002.
3. that the MPS will, during 2004, be introducing the NPSIS Custody and Case preparation systems.

B. Supporting information

PNC Timeliness Performance Indicators

1. Quality and timeliness standards are set out in the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Compliance Strategy, which was adopted as the national standard in 2000. These Performance Indicators are not legally binding and hence the priority given to them varies between forces.

2. The timeliness standard for arrest and charge is that 90% of arrest summons (A/S) reports (i.e. initial details of an individual satisfying operational need) should be created on PNC within 24 hours. In December 2003 the MPS created 93.7% of A/S reports within 24 hours. The average for English Forces for that month was 77.7%. The MPS consistently met the A/S target in 2003. The MPS creates, on average, over 11000 records per month.

3. The timeliness standard for court case results is that 100% of results should be entered within 7 working days. However, this timeliness standard is further broken down as follows: Courts must send the court results to the police within 3 working days of the court sitting; and 100% of the court case results must be updated within 3 days of coming into police possession. (See Appendix 1)

4. In December 2003 the MPS entered 5.6% of case disposal results within seven days. The average for English Forces for that month was 35.9%. That said, it is very important to note that PITO cannot identify how long the courts take to inform the police. The MPS PNC Bureau however does update 95% of cases within 2 days of receipt of the results. Turnaround is affected for forces undertaking completion of court results on long-standing Impending Prosecutions.

5. The MPS process between 9000 and 10000 results per month from 52 courts (12 Crown, 42 magistrates). In comparison GMP (which achieved 53.7% in December 2003) does half this amount per month. Appendix 3 outlines in brief the processes involved in updating PNC with results. As members will note it is a bureaucratic process (even more so when results are not complete or there are errors that need correcting) employing a large number of MPS staff.

6. The MPS do not currently systematically record the time taken for courts to send the results to the Service. With 52 courts this exercise is very resource intensive.

7. However there is evidence, via dip sampling, periodic examination of court timeliness and anecdotal evidence from very experienced inputting staff, that many courts are taking considerable time to validate results and forward them to the MPS.

8. A recent dip sample (2nd week of Jan 04) of Brent magistrates court results show that Brent have only just validated results of the hearing that took place on 26/10/03. Appendix 2 is an extract for a study undertaken in late 2002 on court result timeliness relating to Inner London Magistrates Courts. Members will note that average time for results to be validated range from 0 to 9 days. The situation has not improved. The PNC Bureau is currently trying to develop means of systematically recording this time delay.

9. Between July 2003 and December 2003 the percentage updated within 7 days fell from an average of about 20% between January 2003 and July 2003 to an average of 5% between August and December 2003. There are two reasons for the ‘poor’ performance.

10. First of all many courts, apart from the normal delay in getting results to the MPS, have since August 2003 been experiencing considerable problems with validating their results.

11. Because of this delay, since August 2003 the MPS PNC Bureau was giving the Inner London Magistrates Courts (which contributes about 60% of MPS results) eight days grace to validate the results prior to updating the results on PNC. The combination of the two reasons has resulted in the ‘poor’ performance.

12. This practice has stopped and in addition the MPS are now piloting the updating of PNC with unvalidated results (with appropriate risk assessment in place). If there is very little difference between validated and unvalidated results then this action should result in considerable improvement in timeliness of updating court results. But it is not expected to improve timeliness above 20% mainly due to delays in courts informing the MPS.

13. As members will note, the process of updating is a bureaucratic and resource intensive process. Delays in receiving the results from courts contribute to the delays in updating conviction records on PNC. There is no real impetus for the courts to act as quickly as possible to inform the police of the results. The onus is on the police to chase up the results.

14. Further delay occurs when police have to interpret results, especially Crown Court adjudications. This can be time consuming and resource intensive.

15. This administrative burden should be removed from the the Police Service and transferred to the Lord Chancellor’s office where the responsibility properly sits. There is no reason preventing the Courts updating PNC directly with results.

Codes of Practice for the use of the PNC

16. Having said the above members should note that the Home Office have commissioned CENTREX to develop doctrines relating to various police activities. This work will result in major changes to the performance standards for a variety of issues like use of firearms, investigation of missing persons, the use of PNC etc.

17. The ACPO PNC Data Quality and Timeliness Implementation Group, chaired by Deputy Chief Constable I. R. Readhead, is currently overseeing the development of standards relating PNC data quality and timeliness performance.

18. The work will result in a Code of Practice, which will be laid before Parliament for ratification (April 2004) under the section 2, 8 and schedule 1 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The effect is to make the P.I’s legally binding. Appendix 3 outlines proposed changes to the P.I.’s currently being discussed.

19. The MPS PNC Bureau believes that any further effort to meet the current P.I’s should be kept to a minimum until the new P.I’s are issued.

NSPIS Custody and Case Preparation System

20. National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS) is a long-term programme set up by the Home Office and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) with the aim of providing common police IT applications for England and Wales. The custody and case preparation system is one such system.

21. The MPS will be piloting and rolling out these systems over the course of 2004. These systems will enable authorised staff on boroughs to create A/S records and update them directly without having to contact the MPS PNC Bureau i.e. removing the ‘middleman’. In theory this should improve timeliness and data quality issues considerably.

22. Avon & Somerset, Warwickshire, GMP and Essex are some of the forces that have already taken the product. Early reports are that there are still some teething problems.

23. Operational efficiency and data protection legislation calls for the highest standards of data timeliness and accuracy on the PNC. Page 3, Paragraph 8 of draft The Code of Practice, as mentioned above, states that:

“ Performance against any criteria is only legitimised when the underlying business requirements for those standards are assured. Evidence suggests that the timeliness criteria within the strategy, which introduced much-needed national performance standards, set unachievable standards. Whilst any relaxation of those standards should not be used to legitimise poor performance, the consistent failure to achieve what may, in the current environment, be unrealistic serves no useful purpose. It is for this reason that the performance criteria has been re-visited and demanding yet achievable targets proposed” (Appendix 5).

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no equality or diversity implications arising from this report.

D. Financial implications

Apart from the possible resource implications mentioned within the report which refer to changes in procedures there are no financial implications arising from this report.

E. Background papers

• Arrest Summons Records- Extract from PITO Monthly Statistics Dec 03
• Court Results - Extract from PITO Monthly Statistics Dec 03
• Simple Outline of Court Resulting Processes in the MPS
• Court Timeliness Statistics for Inner London Magistrates Court
• Proposed Performance Indicators for new PNC Codes of Practice

F. Contact details

Report author: Inspector Ravi Pillai, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback