Crime recording

Report: 10
Date: 9 November 2006
By: Director of Strategy Modernisation and Performance Directorate on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides a summary of the MPS crime recording system with particular reference to the levels of non-recording that occurs for detailed fields, which may impact upon diversity issues.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Brief history of CRIS system

1. The original 'Green Screen' system introduced in 1996 was designed around the Paper Crime book system, which at the time was used to record all crimes. The immediate benefit was the ability to search all crimes to look for patterns, and link crimes where specific features were evident. Although originally designed purely as a Crime Management tool, and not for intelligence purposes, it was soon recognised that the CRIS database was a valuable source of intelligence information, and as such has been exploited accordingly. The system was updated in 2003 to a web based application, allowing far greater flexibility and the ability to share data both internally with other systems, and with a variety of CJ partners. The current database size is approximately 12 million crimes, increasing annually by 1 million. The current user community is in the region of 35,000, based on the number of live CRIS accounts.

Explanation of Key features of the system

2. As already mentioned, the current system is a Web based application with a search engine (FBOC) integrated into the design. This allows crimes to be recorded, managed and searched, by all users of the system. Management of accounts, and levels of access are strictly controlled, with relevant security protocols being maintained. Access to the system is strictly controlled; with a full audit of all system activities recorded 24/7, allowing the interrogation of these files for either discipline or evidential purposes. The system possesses personal work files, allowing management of crimes and activities, with automatic mail prompts being sent to remind users to carry out activities in specific timescales.

3. Apart from the main Crime recording activity, and the searching of the database by volume CRIS users, there is a large analyst community, which use the FBOC tool to search the database in support of key initiatives being pursued within the organisation. This research is used to direct policing resources and to target key problem areas highlighted by the analyst teams.

4. A depersonalised version of the CRIS database is produced at the end of each month, to provide statistical data to PIB, which is used to produce the Crime figures provided to the Home Office. This depersonalised dataset is used by PIB for a variety of activities, and to monitor performance both at a borough and organisational level.

5. There are a number of interfaces, which are either in place or in production to internal systems that provide the ability to share CRIS data for both intelligence and statistical purposes.

6. In addition to those systems already mentioned, the MPS shares CRIS data with a large number of CJ partners, either by providing a link into CRIS for direct access to Crime data, or via a secure gateway to provide data and Email services. Information is also shared with other Forces in cross border initiatives and cross border operations. Examples are:

• TFL - Working directly with the TOCU, in the Mapping of Crime hotspots in relation to specific modes of transport.
• VSS - By the delivery of victim information via secure Email.
• NOMS – CRIS enquiry centre working directly with the Victim Protection Scheme, to ensure relevant protection provisions are upheld on release of prisoners.
• Immigration Service – Provision of CRIS data downloads, and access to CRIS terminals, working in teams with officers from within the organisation.
• BTP – Connection to all the London offices, and Cardiff, in relation to the transfer and management of crime carried out on the transport system.
• City of London – Various policing matters concerning, Security, Key operations, etc
• Bordering forces – Surrey, Kent, Thames Valley, Herts, Essex, etc, in relation to joint operations and specific initiatives.

Data content

7. A typical CRIS report consists of numerous fields relating to the details of the alleged offence, some examples are:

• Property
• Victim
• Suspect details if known
• Details of Crime/Offence classification
• Venue
• Date/Time of Offence
• CAD ref if appropriate
• Linked Crime Details

8. There is a significant amount of other data, which may also be recorded relating to Officer in the case, No Crime, Transferred out, etc, all of which is used by the borough CMUs to manage the crime within the borough.

9. Some Crime reports are “Restricted” within the system, which only allows people with specific permissions to access these crimes, due to either the sensitive nature of the content (e.g. where a celebrity is involved), or specific Crime type.

10. In addition, within the area of data quality, we have introduced National Crime Recording standards (NCRS) within the CRIS application, to ensure compliance with national standards on Crime recording.

11. The ‘Dets’ field is the section used to describe the activities undertaken by investigating officers. This is in effect a free text field and relies on individual officers recording what they have done. The field may also be used to cross-reference to other investigative details e.g. a cross reference to a HOLMES account for the investigation of a murder etc. This field is often the only record of activity and is of key importance in describing the decisions made in or course of conduct of an investigation. There is currently work being undertaken to develop and enhance the ability to search on a ‘key word’ basis.

Recording of Self Defined Ethnicity (SDE)

12 Ethnicity in the CRIS system is currently recorded in two ways. When CRIS was originally launched in 1996 and pre April 2003, the system relied exclusively on six ethnicity codes. The introduction of the 16+1 self-defining system has been incorporated into the system. This change was introduced following Recommendation 61 of the McPherson report into the investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence.

13. SDE cannot completely replace the ethnicity codes on a crime report. The suspects’ page still requires a system for recording the description of the suspect. This cannot be self-defining until such time as the suspect is caught. SDE is currently a non-mandatory field.

14. There is some variance across different crime types regarding the recording of SDE, as well as in the different methods of recording and reporting. Analysis of this variance would suggest that:

• There is still some reluctance for reporting officers in particular to ‘press’ people in telling them what they think their ethnicity is
• This is particularly difficult over the telephone – and telephone reporting is the area of highest non compliance
• Some confusion still remains to reporting officers as to what is mandatory and non mandatory

Recording of gender and age of victims and accused

15. The age and gender of the victim is a mandatory field and therefore have to be entered before the user can move on in creating the record. A small number of anomalies remain in the system e.g. victim with a title of ‘Mrs’ and female forename being recorded as ‘male’. These are more likely to be simple recording errors. The mandatory element of this field does however relate to the original six-ethnicity codes.

16. In the accused field, it is mandatory to record SDE. The field is also generally more accurate (including the age and sex of the accused) – as the data is immediately available to the inputter/reporting officer.

Disability, faith, religion and sexual orientation

17. Disability of victims is monitored on CRIS by way of a drop down menu which if selected allows the inputter to select one of a number of defined disabilities. Mobility is the highest category of recorded disability, although the range of disabilities includes both visible and invisible categories. Any disability of the accused is not recorded.

18. Faith is only recorded as a flagged category using the ‘FH’ faith hate flag. Where these incidents are flagged - in the majority of cases the religion of the victim is shown. In addition the faith of victims can be recorded under the Victims ‘code of practice’ Screen. (This is a screen in the system that was originally designated to a ‘Victim Charter’ page. It has now been renamed to provide a method of measuring compliance across the Victim Code of Practice – to be developed under the Quality of Service Commitment). Faith of the accused is not recorded.

19. Religion may also be recorded as a non-mandatory field within the victim screen. Whilst the range of religions recourse is extensive, with Christian being the largest single category, there is some potential for double counting with for instance the second largest category being Catholic.

20. The sexual orientation of victims is not routinely recorded but homophobic incidents are flagged by means of the HO flag.

Crime related incidents.

21. Crime related incidents (CRI) are a category in the CRIS system when there is an allegation of crime but there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation. This may then be recorded as a CRI if on the balance of probability the incident does not amount to a crime, or there is not as yet sufficient detail to make a decision. From April to September 2006 there were 63921 incidents. The most significant category of these was fraud and forgery (58%).

Activities for improvement

22. Work has been ongoing to address some of the issues raised by the crime recording system.

Short term – Within 3 to 6 months

• Three new training courses have been developed and are at pilot stage for all of our Telephone Investigation Staff. The compliance issues as described above will form part of the lesson plans for this crucial group.
• The Emerald TPCMU has responsibility for the corporate support of Crime Management Units and Telephone Investigation Bureaus. The importance of compliance around the issues identified will be incorporated within the next round of supervisor’s seminars.

Medium Term – Within the next year

• Mandatory fields to be introduced to capture SDE. The responsibility for CRIS has recently been transferred from EDS to Cap Gemini. As a result of this change there may be some delay in the submission and acceptance of these technical changes to the system

Long Term- Ongoing

• As part of the Service Review, a business case was made for resource to establish a Centralised Crime Recording Bureau in line with most other Forces. This has significant cost implications. Whilst work is ongoing to standardise the crime management function across both TP and SCD (with significant progress and results) it is recognised that centralised crime recording is still aspirational at this stage. It is still the case that this system would ensure the greatest impact on the quality of recorded crime data.

Conclusions

23. The paper has discussed a number of issues pertinent to the CRIS system and its future developments. There are a number of broad observations that can be made:

• Greater compliance with self-defined ethnicity would be achieved by making this field mandatory on the victim’s screen, although this may cause some difficulty with telephone reporting.
• The IT present within CRIS is probably fit for purpose. Whilst the provision of more mandatory fields may improve this situation but ultimately there is no alternative to more diligent in putting and better supervision to ensure a higher standard of reporting.
• Further work is ongoing to establish appropriate governance arrangements for the system. Technical developments to support improved data quality will need to be aligned to the operational benefit of the improved and better-supervised data that is put into the system.

Abbreviations

CRIS

Crime Reporting Information System

SDE

Self-Defined Ethnicity

TCRU

Telephone Crime Recording Units

FBOC

CRIS search engine

CJ

Criminal Justice

PIB

Performance Information Bureau

TfL

Transport for London

VSS

Victim Support Scheme

BTP

British Transport Police

CMU

Crime management Unit

NCRS

National Crime reporting Standards

16+1

The self-defined ethnicity system has 16 groups to choose from plus there is the option to refuse to self-define.

C. Legal implications

1. Data accuracy is imperative for the MPS particularly as regards discharging its statutory responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom Of information Act 2000.

2. CRIS is a vital tool for monitoring in relation to the MPS discharging its statutory responsibilities under the Race Relations Amendments Act and the Disability Discrimination Act.

D. Race and equality impact

1. The under recording of SDE could lead to an inability by the service to accurately assess the impact individual crimes are having on some communities. The accuracy of this information is important if the MPS is to analyse, understand and act on crimes where ethnicity is a factor.

2. This report also highlights that other equality information is either not being recorded or not being recorded accurately. Data recording standards in areas like age and gender of victims and disability information need to be improved.

E. Financial implications

1. The training implications as highlighted short term will not incur any financial or resource costs. Mandatory fields can be achieved at a cost of approx £5000 but will be subject to Cap Gemini’s ability to manage the process. The costs of any centralised crime recording system are significant.

2. There is no mechanism as yet established at present to Quality Assure this area of work. Additional resource would be required in order to achieve this monitoring.

F. Background papers

None

G. Contact details

Report author: Cmdr. Simon Foy, 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