National crime recording standard update

Report: 14
Date: 9 November 2006
By: Director of Strategy, Modernisation and Performance on behalf of Commissioner

Summary

Since the 2005 Audit Commission (AC) grading of yellow (good) in relation compliance with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), a plan to further improve compliance has been implemented. The plan has been further developed to ensure that it continues to meet the need for the MPS to progress towards achieving the required standard alongside the other significant change programs currently being undertaken within the organisation. This report provides information about the development of the plan, barriers that have been encountered and progress towards full compliance with the NCRS and Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime (HOCR).

A. Recommendation

That Members note the report.

B. Supporting information

1. In 2003 the Audit Commission (AC) commenced a three-year national audit program of police forces in relation to compliance with NCRS and HOCR. From the nine tests or ‘investigations’ covering the entire range of incident and crime recording procedures, the AC publishes an audit program of selected investigations each year. The 2004/5 audit, known as ‘year two’, consisted of Investigation 1 (to determine whether reports of crime related incidents resulted in crime reports and if not, whether they contained the necessary information to support the decision to not record a crime) and Investigation 5 (to consider whether a recorded crime has been classified as ‘no crime’ in accordance with HOCR). Additionally, ‘management arrangements’ for crime recording practices were considered. The ‘year 3’ Audit examined Investigation 1 (as above) and Investigation 9. This considered the ‘end-to-end’ crime recording process with emphasis on reclassification of crimes and ‘no-criming’. As in other years, ‘Management Arrangements’ were considered, as was progress since the previous audit.

2. Within the MPS, incidents are generally recorded on the Computer Aided Despatch (CAD) system and crimes are recorded on the Crime Report Information System (CRIS). Hence, investigation 1 is often referred to as ‘CAD to CRIS’.

3. In respect of both Investigation 1 and 9 the MPS were graded yellow (good). Management arrangements were also graded yellow (good). All demonstrate a significant improvement compared with the year 2 audit.

4. All improvements were driven by the 10-point NCRS Action Plan (attached at Appendix A) This plan was created as a result of the year 2 poor results and externally validated by Mr Peter Warner (FCR Thames Valley Police now seconded to the Home Office Police and Crime Standards Directorate) The plan seeks to achieve compliance through reinforcement of the changes in the rules, staff development and changes to the organisational culture rather than through a scheme intervention and correction of the databases. Regular audit forms an important part of the process although competing demands of the Data Accuracy Team (DAT) have delayed this.

5. The National Standard of Incident Recording (NSIR) team has now been incorporated into DAT to manage the changes as a result of the introduction and implementation of NSIR. Delivery of training to the staff who input incidents onto the CAD system is one of their functions. This has also led to a positive impact upon the results of investigation 1. This team, in conjunction with the National Centre for Applied Learning Technology (NCALT) has successfully designed the first national computer-based training package. This has been the subject of critical acclaim by the Home Office and by peers in other forces. This package covers the ‘cusp issues’ between NCRS and NSIR.

6. A TP Crime Management Unit (CMU) has now been set up. The purpose of this small team is to assist BOCU CMUs to understand and implement correct crime recording policy. Update seminars are now hosted quarterly for all CMU supervisors, aiming to ensure that relevant information is passed on and that all staff enjoy a consistent of interpretation. It is also proposed that SCD/SO CMU take over responsibility for classification and confirmation of crimes that fall to them for investigation. This debate continues.

7. Blockages to progress have been identified in five main areas; communication, cultural, the drive for performance, local crime recording policies and the lack of centralisation of crime recording.

8. Communication: There are more than 540 CMU staff across the MPS located within the 32 boroughs. Additionally there are 270 Designated Decision Makers (DDM) dealing with detection decisions. NCRS and HOCR can never cover every eventuality and therefore a certain amount of interpretation of the rules is unavoidable. Improvements in communication, driven by the Action Plan have included a structured briefing and seminar package delivered to key players within the crime recording process (e.g. Staff from CMUs, IBOs, TIBs, Metcall, ACPO, BOCU commanders and DDM Crime Managers). Previous concerns over the dilution of the message still exist but appear to have been mitigated by the communication strategy within the Action Plan.

9. Cultural: Historically, crime was recorded if evidence existed to support the fact that a crime had occurred. The change as a result of NCRS/HOCR is to a victim-based approach where if a victim reports an incident and the circumstances, as reported, amount to a crime, then a crime is recorded unless there is credible evidence to the contrary. The current Safer Neighbourhood (SN) strategy relies upon deployment of resources in accordance with community needs. There is therefore a greater appetite to better understand those ‘quality-of-life’ issues that manifest themselves as high volume Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) crimes. The link between the MPS NSIR and NCRS teams is now being further developed to exploit all relevant information. The use of ASB data will also allow the MPS to make like-for-like comparison in levels of such crimes.

10. Drive for performance: A narrow focus on quantative performance indicators still resulted in no cognisance of quality issues. An example would be where the drive to increase overall detections (prior to 1 April 2006) included a large number of investigations being resolved by Non Sanction Detection (NSD). In many of these cases, there are concerns in relation to their sustainability. It is also clear that many other incidents have been resolved by issuing a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND). Whilst this has effectively increased the overall detection rate, this must be balanced by the fear of a rise in recorded crime created by the increase in PND usage. Community confidence in dealing with members of the public in this way may also be affected.

11. Local crime recording policies: It is clear that the drive for performance has engaged all staff, be it on BOCU or in specialist departments. However, it is also clear that in attempting to assure the accuracy of crime classification, some local policies introduce barriers and delays to the crime recording decision-making process. For example, on some BOCUs all priority crimes must be validated by a ‘gatekeeper’ before being put onto CRIS or confirmed as a specific crime-type. In many cases, this results in that crucial decision being delayed beyond the prescribed 72 hours. This results in a NCRS failure re Investigation 1. During the recent assistance provided by the MPS to enable the Audit Commission to pilot their process for the next audit, it is clear that this is a significant problem.

12. Lack of centralisation of crime recording; The current regime with at least one CMU per (B) OCU does not encourage consistency or allow valid comparisons between different units. There is the opportunity for CMU practice to be influenced by local management irrespective of MPS policy. The move towards centralisation is currently in its infancy (TP CMU have limited functionality and consideration of the relative benefits being discussed within SCD). The sacrifice of local ownership of CMUs may be a small price to pay to realise the real benefits of improving data quality and therefore the sustainability of MPS decision making may prove to be an irresistible force.

13. Additional CRIS functionality was improved to eliminate further administrative errors. For example, to enable the correction of the database when additional victims are identified for a previously recorded crime. In conjunction with the continual work within the NCRS action plan, it is anticipated that further improvements will be made in compliance with the standard.

List of abbreviations

AC

Audit Commission

CAD

Computer Aided Despatch

CRIS

Crime Report Information System

DAT

Data Accuracy Team

HOCR

Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime

DDM

Designated Decision Makers

NCALT

National Centre for Applied Learning Technology

NCRS

National Crime Recording Standard

NSIR

National Crime Recording Standard

PCSD

Policing and Crime Standards Directorate

C. Race and equality impact

The MPS recognises that there is under-reporting of crime from disadvantaged groups and that any perceived barriers to the reporting of crime may have a disproportionate effect. Removal of potential barriers through NCRS/HOCR compliance is therefore likely to have a positive impact on race and diversity issues.

D. Financial implications

All costs will be met from existing MPS budgets.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Colin Duncan, Force Crime Registrar, 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