Crime data recording scrutiny

Report: 11
Date: 27 September 2007
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report requests Member endorsement of the terms of reference for the crime data recording scrutiny.

A. Recommendations

That Members approve the terms of reference for the crime data recording scrutiny as set out in appendix 1.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. High quality data is vital for effective policing. Without access to such accurate data the police cannot establish the extent, location and victimisation levels of crime and anti-social behaviour and therefore cannot provide a robust response.

2. The MPA has recently joined the MPS Crime Recording Oversight Group (CROG) and, following discussions with other members of the group, has highlighted the need for a review of all the related processes.

3. Recent Crime Control Strategy Meetings (CCSMs) managed by the MPS and attended by the MPA have highlighted problems with consistency of crime data recording across a number of crime types.

Scrutiny panel

5. Richard Sumray will chair the scrutiny. Karim Murji (Deputy Chair of Planning Performance and Review Committee) will sit on the panel.

Objective of the scrutiny

6. The objectives of the scrutiny are:

• To ensure that the MPS crime recording processes comply with legislative, investigative and customer requirements.
• To ensure crime recording data within the MPS is fit for purpose
• To ensure that the MPS oversight processes and structure are sufficiently robust to assure the quality of crime data recording.

7. This will be accomplished by examining and reviewing:

• The progress in implementing and complying with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) and associated Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR).
• The progress in implementing and complying with the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) and associated National Incident Category List (NICL).
• The MPS governance system for oversight of implementation and interpretation of NCRS, NSIR and HOCR.
• The current cost of administering NCRS, NSIR and HOCR against the benefits accrued in performance and data quality. Additional cost and benefits of full implementation and compliance required.
• Any disproportional impact of non-compliance on different crime types.
• The local MPS oversight and scrutiny process to ensure a strong performance culture operates within a regime of compliance with the NCRS, NSIR and HOCR.
• Recommendations from the Audit Commission and the HMIC
• The MPS NCRS action plan

N.B. If the scrutiny identifies any issues that require urgent action, these will be acted upon immediately.

8. A full version of the terms of reference are attached at Appendix 1.

C. Race and equality impact

Equality and diversity implications will be assessed as an integral part of the review and any disproportional impact of non-compliance on different crime types will be investigated.

D. Financial implications

1. It is hoped that the staffing costs for the MPA scrutiny will to a large extent be absorbed through the workload of the Planning and Performance team. Offers of support have been made by the MPS to help with research and production of papers. Additional administrative support may be required to supplement the work of the MPA Planning and Performance team PA.

2. Publication of the report will cost approximately £2000.

3. Additional funding requirements will be highlighted for approval should they be identified through the scrutiny process.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

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