National Crime Recording Standard update

Report: 10
Date: 17 May 2007
By: Commissioner

Summary

The Home Office yearly crime data audit plan commenced in 2002 with the Audit Commission (AC) as lead auditor. It has now completed its fourth and final audit under the plan. Over those years the MPS performance for compliance in crime recording has moved from being considered poor to good and is now considered to be fair, with its data considered to be ‘satisfactory’ and ‘fit for purpose’. This report provides information about the action plan that has been created to respond to the recommendations and improvements that have been made since the last update.

A. Recommendation

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Improvements made since last update

1. The MPS is expected to achieve against an array of performance targets based on crime recording and detecting. Such expectation can sometimes place pressures, at OCU level, which can impact on compliance with the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR). To reduce the opportunity for criticism in relation to the recording of crime, the MPS is developing a Data Accuracy Report to be used alongside other performance reports. The intention is to draw attention to those areas of the performance that appear incongruous, and as such may require further investigation either to assure good practice and data quality.

2. The MPS is also developing a BOCU self audit to examine, initially, those incidents recorded on the CAD system for compliance with the National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS). The first audit will be completed by the MPS Data Accuracy Team (DAT), MPS Inspectorate and staff from TPHQ, however It is intended that this audit will thereafter be undertaken by the BOCUs themselves with a dip sampling regime being applied, to ensure the accuracy and standardisation of method. The first audit will be completed by September/October 2007 further audits will examine other elements of crime recording.

3. The recently introduced National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) has provided another opportunity to identify those areas where crime recording performance can be improved. To ensure the correct application of the NSIR standard, the DAT (NSIR) has developed an auditing regime. The MPS has only adopted the Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) part of the standard at present. The intention is that the remaining three elements (Transport, Public Safety & Welfare, and Administration) will be fully implemented early in 2008. Auditing of the ASB incident records has discovered a number of crime recording concerns relating to processes and practices that are now being addressed. The NSIR team are also heavily committed to training staff, who have responsibility for incident recording. As the NCRS and the NSIR standards are linked the training also covers crime-recording issues.

4. April 2007 saw the yearly publication of the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime (HOCR) with a major change on the detecting of crime. From this year, the number of methods by which crime could be detected has reduced. The detection method of Non Sanction Detection (NSDs) has been substantially reduced. This was the Home Office approved method that allowed police to clear up crimes that were not subject to a judicial disposal for reasons often beyond the control of police, but where the circumstances were such that had they gone forward to a court hearing the chances of the case being convicted were very high. The MPS in a further effort to ensure that such cases, where they do still occur, fully comply with the criteria set, have removed the decision making ability away from the BOCUs to independent centralised units. So far this year, this has kept such detections to fewer than 25 compared to a previous annual total of approximately 60,000.

5. Other changes to the HOCR included additional requirements for BOCUs Designated Decision Makers (DDMs) when reviewing Sanction Detections (SDs). In order to assist the BOCUs deal with this, the number of DDMs allowed on each was doubled.

6. The police recording of fraud crimes has been a long-term concern with estimates of the actual level of fraud recorded by police being only 1% of the true level. To improve, not only the recording, but also the investigation the process of recording by police was changed in the HOCR of 2007. This now ensures that the actual victim of the fraud, the victim that suffers the loss, the Financial Institution (FI), is responsible for reporting direct to police. To further improve that recording and investigation the MPS has a centralised fraud single point of contact. This post holder now records all reports from the FIs and assigns them to relevant locations.

7. The MPS, having been instrumental in identifying a national problem with NSDs, has introduced Operation Hines. This ensures that any such detections already in our system, in relation to serious offences where the offender has been subject to an Enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check, are fully justifiable and able to withstand external scrutiny. Involvement of the MPA, with representation on the Gold Group dealing with NSDs has brought about further opportunities for understanding the issues. The processes supporting Operation Hines have been externally scrutinised by the HMIC and circulated to other forces as national good practice.

Issues effecting progress

8. The MPS has a Crime Recording Oversight Group (CROG) that has representation from all business groups within the MPS involved in crime recording. It allows those groups the opportunity to debate the implementation of agreed changes to the HOCR and propose changes to the Home Office via the Force Crime Registrar. It also deals with concerns that are raised internally on the MPS interpretation of the rules. CROG enables ACPO leads in Territorial Policing, Central Communication Command (CCC) and Performance Directorate, to address the inevitable tensions between NCRS compliance and the need to achieve performance targets.

9. Most Forces have centralised crime recording, therefore, a more consistent application of NCRS than the MPS, which retains crime recording capability on each of its 32 BOCUs and within various Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD) units. Territorial Policing (Op. Emerald) within the MPS has responsibility for the MPS crime recording policy and is undertaking a project to identify best crime recording practice pan-London.

10. Local crime recording policies are another issue affecting progress towards full compliance with the NCRS. Although various attempts have been made to eradicate these, the sheer size of the MPS and the turnover of staff within BOCUs is such that they can develop without reference to either the Force Crime Registrar or TP (Op. Emerald). Territorial Policing (TP) is at present creating overarching crime recording policies and standard operating practices that will draw all current policies together. It will include a section to prohibit local policies being introduced without first being considered by CROG for inclusion in MPS policy.

11. MPS Central Communication Command (CCC) has the ability, in extreme circumstances, to suspend compliance with NCRS. NCRS requires that if on the balance of probabilities on the circumstances reported, it amounts a crime and, there is no evidence to the contrary, then a crime must be recorded. When dealing with such calls that do not amount to a crime the operator should detail in the record exactly why no crime has been recorded. Suspending NCRS means they do not have to make such a justification but can quickly close the record as ‘incorrect use of the emergency system’ referring the caller to their local station. The suspension is introduced as a contingency when the outstanding calls entering CCC from the emergency system are such that resources available are unable to cope. Whilst this is a rarely imposed measure, it can undermine MPS NCRS compliance overall.

Audit Commission Data Crime Audit

12. Attached at Appendix 1 is the full report together with the updated action plan at Appendix 2.

13. Due to the performance achieved last year grading the MPS as yellow (good) the examination this year was restricted to a Force audit. In essence this meant more of a ‘light touch’ with only a ‘force sample’ of incidents and crimes being examined rather than an in depth examination of each BOCUs data. The audit was also restricted, as last year, to Investigation 1 (to determine whether reports of related incidents resulted in crime reports and if not whether they contained the necessary information to support the decision not to record a crime) and Investigation 9 (considering the end-to-end process with emphasis on reclassification of crimes and recorded as ‘no-crimes’. As in other years, ‘Management Arrangements’ for crime data quality were also tested.

14. The overall rating for the MPS was ‘Fair’. This was a reduction from the previous year when we were rated as ‘Good’, but the standard of data was still reported as being ‘satisfactory’ and ‘fit for purpose’. In addition, the arrangements in place to monitor the quality of published performance information were considered suitable.

15. The action plan agreed with the Audit Commission (AC) has ten strands all of which have been assigned to senior identified officers/staff within the business groups that have responsibility for delivering improvements. It also shows the current position within those strands. It is intended that the monitoring will be undertaken by the CROG on a quarterly basis.

Funding for future NCRS Audits

16. The Home Office has indicated that they will no longer fund crime data audits, it is anticipated that the Audit Commission, may still continue, when examining forces, to carry out future crime data audits.

17. The NSIR project that was being managed within the Home Office has moved to the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). It is possible that the NPIA may at some stage take on responsibility for crime data audits due to its role in promoting improvements in policing and the acknowledged benefits in integrating incident and crime recording.

Audits for 2007-08

18. Due to the end of the current Home Office crime data audits the only external crime audit due for the future in the MPS is the HMIC Detections audit being undertaken at the end of July. Planning for this is well underway and being co-ordinated by the TP Detections Team within TP (Op. Emerald). It will be focusing on the high risk areas in detections:

• Cautions
• Offences Taken into Consideration
• Penalty Notices
• Cannabis Warnings

Being examined but being reported separately from the overall assessment will be:

• Discontinued Cases
• Non Sanction Detections

The size of the MPS and the resources available to the HMIC mean that the scope of the audit will be restricted to three BOCUs (Barnet, Croydon and Islington). Whilst this will give a good indication of the performance of those particular BOCUs, it will not be able to reflect Force wide performance.

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 the recording of previously under- reported offences.

D. Financial implications

All costs will be met from existing MPS budgets, although NCRS changes from April 2007, have already required the resourcing of additional DDMs, from within TP.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Colin Duncan, Force Crime Registrar and Simon Bray, Commander Performance Directorate, 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