National Crime Recording Standards update

Report: 12
Date: 13 October 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

The Audit Commission (AC) graded the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) as below standard in October 2004 for its adherence to the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). A plan was implemented to improve performance. Substantial progress has been made with one of the tests being passed to an acceptable standard since, and a technical solution implemented to ensure that progress is made on the other. Further work has taken place over the summer to plan and prepare for the next round of audits and revise the plan to take into account key operational and structural developments.

A. Recommendation

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

1. The issues to be considered from this report emanate from an audit carried out by the Audit Commission (AC) in October 2004. This work was commissioned by the Police Standards Unit of the Home Office (PSU) as part of a national three year rolling programme to test compliance in key areas of crime data management, in order to assess whether the MPS (and other forces) complied with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). These are the national standards, which in effect set the rules and provide the standard benchmark to the recording of crime and ensure that the levels of reported crime are consistent across the country. They are also a significant factor in ensuring that there is general confidence in the level of reported crime; that reported crime can be translated into an accurate intelligence product; and that valid comparisons can be made to ensure consistent improvements in performance.

2. The AC will carry out a series of tests (12 in total) across different aspects of crime recording. The three that are relevant to this report are:

• Test 1 – to examine the compliance rate between crimes being reported over the telephone and through the command and control system - Computer Aided Despatch (CAD) and their appearance in the Crime Recording Information System (CRIS)
• Test 5 – in instances where a crime has been assessed as being a ‘no crime’ has this been done in accordance with the strict guidelines laid down by the NCRS.
• Test 9 – whether the arrangements and structures for managing crime are such that there is some evidence of checks and balances between the obvious tensions to drive performance with the need to adhere to the rules. (This particular test has now been extended to test out this scenario in the specific area of ‘reclassification’ of crime i.e. a crime still remains in the system – but has been changed to something else e.g. where initial reports and investigation treat something as a criminal damage – but is subsequently recognised as being a burglary.

3. All the above tests examine areas of crime management that are routine, well established and accepted techniques – they simply test for compliance to published rules.

4. In October 2004, the MPS was assessed as below the standard required in both Test 1 and Test 5. An action plan was published as a result of this, and in May 2005 the MPS Inspectorate ran an audit on both the Tests. Test 1 had substantially improved to an ‘amber’ grading. Progress had been made around Test 5 – but the standard was still below what was required. Test 9 was not examined but will be an issue to be dealt with in the future.

5. Discussions have taken place over the summer with the PSU and the AC about the timing and nature of the audits that will follow in the third Year of the Audit programme. The proposal is to in effect ‘split’ the audit into two - a re-examination of Test 1 in December 2005 to ensure that general progress is being maintained in the area, with a more detailed and extensive audit around Test 9 (management arrangements) to take place in the spring of 2006.

6. As a precursor to agreement with this revised audit programme, the AC has worked in conjunction with an internal MPS team to once again examine the management arrangements for the MPS and assess how the original recovery plan could be adjusted as a result. Officers from the Authority have been involved in this process and have been party to the drafting of the revised action plan. This work has been very helpful to the process of reassessing priorities and examining how much progress has been made on the original plan. The work is also critical to the position of the MPS that there is a need to address process issues beyond the compliance of passing the tests. It has also given some clarity as to accountability and responsibility for ensuring continued progress.

7. The PSU are keen to see evidence that this plan exists and is capable of being a means of holding the MPS to account. This is an essential part of the agreement to the revised audit programme. The PSU have had sight of draft of this plan and are considering the detail. Discussions are ongoing.

8. There are a number of significant issues to take into account at this stage of the process:

• Compliance around Test 1 (CAD to CRIS conversion) will obviously look slightly different in those Boroughs that are part of the Metcall roll out. This was looked at in some detail by the joint MPS/AC team over the summer. The MPS is still compliant in these Boroughs, although gathering and assessing the data is different in its complexity.
• The original plan had made the case for a ‘technical fix’ in the CRIS system to ensure compliance to Test 5 (no crime rules). This has now been introduced on 1 October 2005 and should ensure Test 5 compliance.
• The management arrangements that will be scrutinised to allow for an improved grading for Test 9 have been part of the detailed submission within the MPS service review to address the creation of a central Crime Management Unit (CMU) within Territorial Policing, with a link into the CMU currently being established within Specialist Crime Directorate and Specialist Operations. The eventual creation of these teams is critical to the sustainability of success in dealing with some of the issues raised by the audit.
• It remains the MPS position that full adherence to the NCRS does have the potential to increase levels of reported crime, sometimes without any apparent explanation. Whilst clearly committed to the enforcement of consistent national standards – the consequences of this increase will need to be carefully explained so as not to aggravate any perception of fear of crime amongst Londoners.
• Work is currently being undertaken to conduct another snapshot of our performance under Test 1 in the lead up to the December audit. This will provide another point of focus to the governance of this work. This is a key partnership between the different business groups across the MPS, co-operation between whom is vital to making this initiative a success.

9. The next steps in this process will be to work closely with the AC to assist in their requirements for data to look at Test 1 in December. The MPA and the MPS are required to return a joint submission to the lead auditor assessing progress to date. An appropriate governance structure will be put in place to ensure that the progress according to the revised plan is being monitored. The MPA are represented in this work.

List of abbreviations

MPA

Metropolitan Police Authority

MPS

Metropolitan Police Service

NCRS

National Crime Recording Standard

AC

Audit Commission

PSU

Policing Standards Unit

CMU

Crime Management Unit

CAD

Computer Aided Despatch

CRIS

Crime Report Information System

C. Race and equality impact

The MPS recognises the fact of under-reporting by disadvantaged groups and therefore the potential for disproportionality in this area.

D. Financial implications

The proposal for the creation of a central CMU and Crime Recording Bureau has been costed as part of the Service Review.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander Simon Foy, Territorial Policing.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback