Crime screening

Report: 4
Date: 1 November 2007
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report explains the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) crime screening policy and the current issues with its standard operating procedure. It provides the numerical data of the amount of crimes that have been ‘Screened In’ and ‘Screened Out’ during 2006/07 and for 2007/08 to date.

A. Recommendations

That members note the content of the report.

B. Supporting information

Description of crime screening policy

1. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has had a crime screening policy, in one form or another, for over thirty years, with the current policy having been approved in 2004. It aims to ensure that resources are efficiently and effectively deployed for the investigation of crime and that crimes are filtered so that resources will only be deployed to further investigate those crimes that are potentially detectable and/or are of a serious nature.

2. All crimes reported to the MPS will be the subject of a primary investigation. This may take place when the victim is visited by an officer, at the front counter of a police station or on the telephone to a Telephone Investigation Bureau (TIB). The person taking the initial report is trained not simply to report the crime, but to investigate it by asking questions to identify further lines of enquiry.

3. Even when the crime is reported to police via a third party, the primary investigation will attempt to identify further lines of enquiry e.g. CCTV.

4. Once the primary investigation has taken place and the computerised crime report (CRIS) has been completed a decision will be made, using the crime screening policy to “screen in” the report for further investigation or to “screen out” the report at which stage the investigation will cease.

5. The screening decision will be made by a member of the borough’s Crime Management Unit (CMU) and noted on the Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS) report.

6. It is mandatory to screen in some offences that are regarded as 'Serious'. These include “Serious Arrestable Offences” as defined by Section 116 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act, Serious Assaults, all sexual assaults, Arson where life is endangered, Blackmail, Perjury, Child Neglect, Witness Intimidation, Aggravated and Distraction Burglaries, Hate crime and Domestic Violence.

7. All other offences are only screened in if there is a basis for believing that the crime is detectable or potentially detectable. Examples of potential leads that would enable the decision maker to follow this course of action would be where there is forensic evidence that links an identified suspect to the crime, visual identification evidence, a named suspect, identifiable property or vehicle, etc.

8. Additionally there is also a process where local boroughs can decide to screen in all crime of a type identified as part of the boroughs “Crime and disorder strategy”. This allows for local priorities to be reflected in the policy.

9. There is also an opportunity for local boroughs to use discretion in screening in additional crimes. This is rarely used but would be where the victim was particularly vulnerable, the venue is notable or there is significant media interest to be screened in for a further investigation. The screening in of the crime might be part of the response to a critical incident. The vulnerability of the victim could include repeat victimisation.

10. Finally when a suspect has been arrested directly at the time of the crime being reported, the relevant crime report will also be shown as Screened In for further investigation.

11. The MPS is currently undertaking a review of the crime screening policy as part of the continuous review cycle. Borough crime managers are currently being consulted to identify areas for improvement and opportunities for further performance gains.

Practicalities of the Crime screening process

12. In practice the officer taking the initial report of the crime will complete all enquires possible at the time and will record the crime on the CRIS system.

13. The Borough Crime Management Unit (CMU) reviews the crime. They quality assure the report and apply the crime screening policy to it.

14. If the crime is screened in, the CMU pass it to a supervisor (usually a sergeant) on the unit that will investigate it.

15. The supervisor will devise an initial investigation plan, note this in the CRIS and pass the crime to an investigator. The decisions as to which investigator undertakes the investigation will take into account the workload and experience of the officers on the unit.

16. If the investigation is screened out, this does not mean that no further action is taken. All victims of crime are referred to the Victim Support Scheme and a letter is sent giving a crime reference number and point of contact. Crime prevention leaflets may also be included.

17. Crime analysts use every offence when mapping particular crimes. This can lead to extra patrols in the area and they may also identify linked crimes by the method used or location committed and this may lead to questioning if a suspect is identified.

18. A screened out crime can always be screened in later if additional lines of enquiry come to light. For instance, when a prisoner is having offences “Taken into Consideration” they will often admit to offences that have previously been screened out through a lack of leads.

19. In practical terms, some decisions to screen in crime are made before the CRIS report is completed. For example, the detective who calls the murder teams to the scene of a suspicious death is effectively calling for a secondary investigation to commence. This does not cause problems, because the offence is one that would require mandatory screening in.

20. The screening policy is ingrained in the investigation management system and has worked well with few problems.

21. Screening a crime in does not mean that it will lead necessarily to a sanction detection.

Advantages and disadvantages of crime screening

22. Advantages:

• Provides better service to the public as it concentrates limited investigative resources on crimes that can be solved (detected).
• Allows for increased focus to be given service-wide to priority crimes (by making them mandatory screened in offences) and allows for locally identified crimes to be given priority (as discretionary screened in offences).
• Offers enhanced performance as resources are targeted on areas that result in positive outcomes.
• Reflects good value for money principles in preventing resources being wasted on crime that cannot be solved.
• Gives an enhanced service to vulnerable victims, victims of hate crime and domestic violence.
• Is flexible, in that it allows priorities to change over time.

23. Disadvantages:

• Can leave some victims thinking their crime was not taken seriously because the investigation was quickly concluded.
• Could lead to missed detection opportunities when an initial assessment fails to identify significant lines of enquiry that would have become apparent had a secondary investigation taken place.

Statistical breakdown of screened out crime.

24. Screening Decision Data

* April – September 2007

Safer Neighbourhood Teams

25. The use of Safer Neighbourhood Teams in the investigation of crime was one that received considerable attention when they were formed. The investigation of crime should not routinely be allocated to the teams unless they include repeat victims and the crimes are having an adverse effect on the neighbourhood.

26. However, they do undertake visits to all victims of burglary and Street Crime. They also visit victims of hate crime where it is considered appropriate (some victims may not find it appropriate to have a uniformed officer visit them).

27. The aim of these visits is to reassure the victims and to give crime prevention advice in a tactic known as target hardening. This recognises research that victims of crime have an increased likelihood of being victims in the future.

28. Investigating Officers can refer crimes that have a disproportionate effect on the feelings of security or fear of crime within the local community to the Safer Neighbourhood Team. One tactic used is “cocooning” where neighbouring properties are visited and crime prevention/ reassurance advice given.

29. In critical incidents (e.g. serious assaults) the Safer Neighbourhood Team are being used to reduce fear and obtain community intelligence.

30. Where a crime has been brought up as a community concern, the Safer Neighbourhoods team will investigate ways to prevent the crime happening in the future. This is usually in a permanent “problem solving” setting and has included the closing of drugs addresses that act as crime generators.

Effect on sanction detections

31. The aim of the screening policy is to concentrate effort where it will have a positive effect both in terms of solving the victim's crime and on sanction detections. The sanction detection rate for the MPS has improved from 14% in March 2005 to 23.9% in August 2007.

32. Whilst it is extremely difficult to quantify what proportion of this is attributable to the screening policy it is evident that if too much crime is screened in, less investigative time will be available to solve the crime and lead to a detection.

33. As the MPS looks for further improvements in sanction detection performance, a review of the current screening policy has recently begun to ensure that the decision making process is still able to balance the needs of the victim with our ability to deliver a quality investigation that results in a sanction detection.

Effect on victim satisfaction

34. The effect of the screening policy on victim satisfaction is more complicated.

35. On the one hand the increased time available to investigators to solve screened in crime does result in a better service for these victims and the increased sanction detection rate indicates that more crimes are being solved to the satisfaction of more victims.

36. However, it can be difficult for victims of screened out crime to understand why no further active investigation of their crime will take place. This can lead to the feeling that “the police did nothing about it”.

37. Generally, this will only happen where there was little chance of the police solving the crime and, as mentioned above a letter is sent explaining the decision.

38. The Victims Code of Practice places numerous obligations on police to keep victims informed of activities within certain time periods and the performance of the MPS is consistently improving in this area.

C. Race and equality impact

There are no race or equality impact issues associated with this report.

D. Financial implications

1. The crime screening policy, properly applied, is a cost effective tool for ensuring police resources are aimed at the service’s priorities and where they will deliver the best results.

2. Since only the investigation of screened in crime is resourced, in terms of staff hours, overtime, forensic submissions etc, then only solvable or priority crimes get these resources. The screening policy is therefore an effective financial control that ensures the MPS delivers value for money.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Detective Superintendent David Way, 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