Metropolitan police detection rates

Report: 17
Date: 12 February 2004
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report:

• Explains the decline in detection rates from 25% in 1997/98 to the current 14%.
• Accounts for changes in crime detection rates since 1996

The main reasons for this change is twofold. First, most other Forces count detections, defined as a judicial disposals* plus an admin detection*; while the MPS has focused on counting judicial disposals only. This has the effect of understating our apparent performance compared with other Forces.

Second, the counting rules have altered over the period. This accounts for some of the drop in performance over time.

The MPS is moving towards counting detections, to align with PPAF definitions. A review team has started work counting admin detections. Initial estimates suggest that the MPS detection rates could be in the region of 16.5 percent to 18 percent in future.

*An example of an administrative detection is where the suspect is known, but the victim does not wish to proceed. A judicial disposal is defined as a summons, charge, cautioned, taken into considerations.

A. Recommendations

That the report be noted.

B. Supporting information

Chart 1: Comparison with other Met Forces (see supporting material)

Comparison with other met forces

1. Graph shows an apparent drop in performance at the MPS – from 25 percent detection rate to a 14 percent detection rate. However this distorts the performance picture because:

• The MPS has focused on counting judicial disposals, rather than detections (detections includes an administrative detection as well as judicial detections).
• Internal housekeeping has therefore not focused on counting administrative detections.
• Consequently this graph gives a misleading comparison because the MPS is under stating its performance compared with other Forces.
• In future, the MPS intends to comply with the national definition when it is agreed by the Home Office.

Chart 2: Underlying performance (see supporting material)

Underlying performance

2. The above graph shows that:

• underlying performance as measured by judicial disposals has not varied as much as detection rates
• where there has been significant change this can be explained by changes in counting rules
• however, there has been a slight fall in judicial disposals recently
• a review team was set up in the summer to look at the counting of MPS detections and JDs

Chart 3: Impact of the review team  (see supporting material)

Impact of the review team

3. The graph above shows the impact that the review team has had on detections and JDs:

• MPS average detection rate April – August was 13.3 percent
• Estimates for the last three months are in the range of 16.4 percent and 18 percent

C. Equality and diversity implications

It is appreciated that there are likely diversity implications within detection and judicial disposal rates however, for the purposes of this paper these have not been discussed. Separate analysis has been undertaken with regard to case tracking within the judicial system.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications coming from this report.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Lawrence Morris, Corporate Performance Analysis Unit, 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