Meeting documents

To question the Police and Crime Commissioner on the recent ‘inadequate’ rating from HMICFRS on crime data integrity. The Deputy Chief Constable will be present for this item.

Full report

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publications/thames-valley-police-crime-data-integrity-inspection-2017/

The Chairman welcomed the Deputy Chief Constable who was attending the meeting for this item to give a presentation on crime data integrity. The PCC introduced the item reporting that he had made some comments about the format of the inspection and was disappointed with the inadequate rating, particularly bearing in mind that they had been graded outstanding for efficiency and good for effectiveness. He felt that this latest rating did not tie up with the other reports.

The Deputy Chief Constable gave his presentation and made the following points:-

History of Crime Data Integrity

• Disconnect between British Crime Survey and Police Figures. The report commented that TVP had made efforts to improve crime-recording accuracy which have led to some improvements since the 2014 report, which include the introduction of a dedicated team to undertake crime-recording audits, providing training to Contact Management staff and developing an understanding of modern slavery offences among officers and staff
• Performance culture across Public Sector
• Integrity of Police Figures – An audit showed process issues leading to the incorrect classification of a statistically significant proportion of crimes and incidents, exacerbated by some knowledge gaps regarding the detail of the National Crime Recording Standards and the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime outside the Contact Management Centre. Understanding of the Niche crime-recording system and adequate supervision of crime-recording decisions were also contributory factors. It was recognised that process and recording issues could impact on the service and support provided to the victim, as well as public confidence.
• ‘TVP fully accept the findings’

Inspection Process

·         Review Incidents on Command and Control

·         2000 Command & Control reports + 500 direct entry Crimes – Command and Control record incidents and then deploy officers. Information is then transferred from the crime recording to NICHE, which is another system and there is some complexity around this transfer of information, which should hopefully be addressed with the new Contact Management System.

·         Compare that with Crime System - If not a crime why not?

·         Third Party reporting – this could be from another organisation such as Social Services, dealing with a vulnerable person. In some of these cases, a crime is not recorded but action will still be taken by TVP.

·         Multiple reports – these are always recorded the first time they are sent through but may not be recorded every time. The report found that the Force is failing to ensure it adequately records all reports of rape, other sexual and violence offences, including domestic abuse crimes and crimes reported directly to its public protection departments.

Context:

·         1.3 million calls (pa)

·         300,000 999 calls (pa)

·         1m 101/Switchboard calls

·         17 Forces Requires Improvement/Inadequate

·         HMIC Effectiveness in March : ‘Good’ for operational effectiveness, which does not tie up with the inadequate rating.

·         With the increased demand arising from 999 calls many Forces are finding this challenging, including the consistency in response.

Findings

·         80% compliance = ‘35,000 potentially under recorded’

·         TVP 4/5 – Inadequate ;  Durham 4.5/5 - Good

·         No issues of Integrity or ethics – there is no suggestion that the Force is ignoring or neglecting calls for service, or failing to attend and deal with incidents and crime. The inspection report found evidence of a strong and ethical culture, with officers and staff acting with integrity.

·         Satisfied that safeguarding had been done even though the crime had not been recorded. The previous HMIC report regarding domestic abuse had received a good judgement.

·         Good leadership – TVP had employed an ex HMIC Inspector to help develop the Action Plan

·         Lack of understanding amongst the workforce – crime recording can be complex. An example of this was ‘sexting’ and being sensitive to how this should be recorded. Another example was where a vulnerable lady in a care home becomes distressed and pushes or shoves staff. This could be recorded as an assault against a member of staff but is this appropriate in all cases?

·         Good Audit team and structures/ No ‘Criming’ Good – however, with limited resources it is important to maintain the right balance between audit staff and operational frontline staff.

·         ‘Potential’ failings.

·         Over recording in Modern Slavery

HMIC Zoe Billingham:

"I am satisfied that the force works very hard to ensure that victims of crime, especially vulnerable victims, are safeguarded. It now needs to ensure that it records crimes at the earliest opportunity, and that there is proper supervision of crime-recording decisions. 

Since our inspection in September 2017, I have been in close contact with Thames Valley Police and I am encouraged by the immediate steps that the force has taken in response to our findings. Since our inspection, Thames Valley Police have developed a plan to address our concerns, and set up a group chaired by the deputy chief constable with strong oversight of progress. HMICFRS will re-visit the force later in 2018 to assess progress."

As referred to earlier the new Contact Management System should help resolve crime recording issues. The new system provides an opportunity to increase recording at the point of call, as well as an adjustment to internal audit processes to provide additional governance and oversight. The Force will be re-inspected in a year and should show the benefits of the new system

Easy’ solutions:

·         Officer discretion v first point crime recording

·         Training all in crime recording v Few

·         Increase Audit teams

 ‘Under record’ V Mis-record

Demand assessment – there will be a robust approach to demand management.

Governance

·         DCC Gold Group- Delivery plan – progress against the Action Plan is being governed through a Gold Group structure, chaired by the Deputy Chief Constable and a newly introduced Tactical Group, chaired by the Force Crime Registrar and attended by practitioners of an appropriate level.

·         Strategic Governance Silver Group

·         Reporting in Chief Constable Management Team

·         Reporting into PCC/OPCC - there will be representation from the OPCC on this group to report progress

·         Re-inspection in 12 months.

During discussion the following points were made:-

·         Cllr Bendyshe Brown asked when the new contact management system would go live. The Chief Constable reported that he hoped this would be the end of June 2018.

·         Cllr Macpherson referred to the point made about the Audit Committee and concern about putting too many resources in this area as this impacted on frontline services. She also asked if there was any breakdown of information on local areas in terms of crime data integrity recording. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that the audit team had been checking compliance before the report was published and the feedback was 90/91% compliance. They did not really want to increase resources in the audit team because of resource implications elsewhere but they had adjusted internal audit processes to provide additional governance and oversight. In terms of Thames Valley areas the recording of crimes/incidents would be geographical but in terms of management information this would be difficult to break down but they could look at developing this in the future.

·         Julia Girling asked why all the areas for improvement recommended in the 2014 report had not been carried out and only limited progress had been made. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that TVP had made progress which had been included in the Delivery Plan. However, they would now report back to HMIC in a more structured way. The Chief Constable referred to the delay in the implementation of the Contact Management System which would have addressed some of the issues raised in the report. Julia Girling asked if crime had been recorded differently whether crime figures would have increased. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that it could increase figures but that any changes in figures should stabilise.

·         Cllr Webster asked about the timeliness of response in terms of referring a victim to a support agency, particularly for areas such as violent and sexual offences. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that in this area, it didn’t matter how the crime was recorded, a specially trained officer would still meet the victim and refer them for relevant support. She then referred to the report which commented that improvements needed to be put in place for recording practices for reports of rape and ensure the correct use of rape classification N100. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that before recording it as a rape there was some sensitivity around ‘possible mis-recording’ as they have to be careful about permanent records but safeguarding was a priority. With domestic abuse cases an officer will visit the victim and undertake a risk assessment which is then referred to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub. There would be a record on the command and control system, which helps maintain intelligence and present a developing picture, but it may not necessarily be recorded as a crime.

·         Cllr Macpherson asked whether any extra resources were required ? The Deputy Chief Constable reported that they were reluctant to put any further resources into audit, particularly with the reduction in policing numbers. They needed to look at their processes including call handling to ensure that the right areas for improvement were addressed.

·         Cllr Bendyshe Brown asked whether any good practice could be learnt from Durham. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that they were part of the National Crime Registrars Group which were looking at how to deal with demand management. Durham was a smaller Force area and a different police environment so it was not always easy to compare. The PCC commented that if the Thames Valley had the same amount of funding as Durham they would be able to afford 1500 additional police officers, which was why it was important to look at the police formula grant to ensure fair funding across the Country. He also commented that Bedfordshire had far less funding than Durham which was interesting considering its proximity to London. The funding issue was being discussed with the Home Office.

·         Cllr Egleton asked whether this situation was unique to the Thames Valley and whether each Force area was taking a consistent approach to crime recording so that comparisons are valid ? He also asked whether the PCC needed to re-evaluate how he scrutinises the Chief Constable performance. The PCC commented that he had argued for a more consistent approach to crime reporting and referred to the Crime Survey for England and Wales. He was raising this issue with the Association of PCC’s. In terms of scrutiny his Office could not add any further scrutiny to that carried out by the HMIC as they have the resources and training to undertake these investigations. The Deputy PCC reported that they would be monitoring TVP’s Delivery Plan and that there would be an OPCC representative on the Gold Group to inform of progress. Cllr Egleton asked how the Panel and the public could be assured that progress was being made? The PCC referred to the Level 1 meeting which he held in public, where he held the Chief Constable to account. Cllr Egleton commented that this was a useful meeting to be updated on reports but that the OPCC would benefit from the skills of a scrutiny officer to ensure that the Chief Constable was effectively held to account.

Members thanked the Deputy Chief Constable for the report and emphasised to the PCC,  the need for more effective scrutiny of the Chief Constable (through the Gold Group) and to look at best practice from other Force areas.  They also commented that it would be helpful to have a breakdown of data information across the LPA areas.