HMIC crime counts review: Johnson responds

18 Jan 10

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has published a detailed response to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s (HMIC) crime counts review. Brian Sims reports.

By Brian Sims

According to an official statement issued on the Home Office’s website, the response was agreed with Justice Secretary Jack Straw and the newly-appointed president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Sir Hugh Orde.

Johnson has offered his opinions on the Technical Report entitled ‘Crime Counts: A Review of Data Quality for Offences of the Most Serious Violence’, published last October.

On the Home Office’s website, crime and policing minister David Hanson stated: “The public and the Government expect crime to be taken seriously, and for crime statistics to be recorded accurately. The independent British crime survey, which is not influenced by recording practices, shows that overall crime is down by 36% since 1997, while the risk of becoming a victim of violent crime remains low.”

Hanson continued: “Accurate recording of crimes is essential to ensure that every victim receives the level of service and support they expect and deserve. This is why the former Home Secretary asked HMIC to review how police forces record instances of violent crime.”

Strong approach to crime recording

There’s an acknowledgement that, over the last 18 months, police forces have done a great deal of work to strengthen their approach to the recording of crime.

“We have moved on significantly from the period which was examined by HMIC,” explained Hanson. “The majority of forces perform well when classifying crime, but the actions we’re taking forward as a result of HMIC’s recommendations will go even further towards making sure the recording rules are properly applied.”

The joint response to ‘Crime Counts’ from both the Home Office and ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers includes a series of recommendations. The first of these centres on ‘Further Review’.

As far as the Home Secretary is concerned, those forces with consistently high error rates in the areas tested should be subject to further review and inspection. “It’s important that the public feel confident and comfortable reporting crime to the police. The accurate recording of those crimes is then essential to ensuring that each person who has unfortunately found themselves a victim of crime receives the appropriate level of response and support.”

In response to this recommendation, the Government’s objective is to work with its delivery partners to create a proportionate level of external scrutiny that will complement audit processes already carried out within the force. “We will work in partnership with police colleagues to do this.”

Review based on risk assessment

The Home Office feels that there is “clear benefit and economies in moving forward with a review regime which is implemented on a risk assessed basis. The strongest driver of risk will be consistently high error rates in the areas of recorded crime tested, but we would expect HMIC to use the analysis of sample data to test for other indicators of risk.”

Apparently, police forces already recognise that no crimes, in particular, are a risk area and should support force crime registrars to carry out or co-ordinate review activity on this at force level. “We will support force crime registrars,” states the Government, “in ensuring their force has robust processes in place which are compliant with Home Office Counting Rules. We will monitor this through the National Crime Recording Steering Group.”

Of course, HMIC indicated last October that it intended to do some work with forces that had a low compliance rate on no crimes in the recent MSV audit in 2010. Their initial engagement will be with forces. “We are working with them and other Stakeholders to determine the scope and extent of this work,” states the Home Office missive.

“As a starting point, HMIC is working with Suffolk Police to review and analyse its performance on no crimes in detail. Through this work, HMIC will identify a baseline methodology which can be applied to No Crimes inspection in other forces. HMIC expects to have the baseline methodology in place in the New Year.”

No crimes are required to have sufficient ‘additional verifiable information’ (AVI) which demonstrates definitively that the incident recorded as a crime was not actually one in practice. The expectation is that ‘hard’ evidence such as CCTV footage would be used. ‘Soft’ evidence – for example the belief of the reporting police officer that the victim was lying without verifiable supporting information – is not deemed adequate.

The Home Office Counting Rules does not contain a definition of additional verifiable information. “We have consulted with key Stakeholders (force crime registrars) who have said that further guidance through exemplification would support them in clarifying the requirement to frontline officers.”

Next steps to be taken

In terms of the next steps, the Home Office has asked ACPO, HMIC and the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) to compile examples of good practice for no crimes and AVI recording on a generic basis which could provide a baseline reference point for all force crime registrars.

This will be taken forward through the Home Office Counting Rules Working Group, with the expectation that guidance will be approved for dissemination next month.

The Government is in the process of refreshing the Data Quality Assurance Manual and will “ensure the No Crimes section is up-to-date and accurate, and that examples of good practice are included. We will take this forward through the Audit and Inspection Working Group, and expect to have the refreshed manual approved for dissemination in February.”

The Home Office has asked HMIC to test the efficacy of these processes as part of its inspection regime when it visits a force to review no crime data. HMIC has agreed to do this, and is considering the introduction of a light touch regime of unannounced inspections to begin in the second half of 2010-2011 once forces have had an opportunity to put performance improvement measures in place.

Definition of an acceptable error rate

Alan Johnson suggests that ACPO and the Home Office should define an acceptable error rate in recording crime that reflects public concerns in relation to offences of violence.

Naturally, the recording of crime will never be 100% accurate across all crime types, but action can be taken to minimise the risk of inaccurate recording while maintaining proportionality and cost-effectiveness.

Banding has been used in Audit Commission crime recording inspections. The bands were: Excellent (95%+), Good (90%+ to 95%), Fair (80% to 90%), Poor (below 80%).

“With Stakeholders,” says the Government, “we have considered the case for retaining the previous bandings or creating a new banding system. We have concluded that, although the continued use of the Audit Commission bandings would allow comparison with the earlier regime, it may not be reasonable to commit to identical bandings and levels of acceptability across all crime types.”

The Home Office “knows that the public is more concerned about offences of violence,” and, on that basis, it’s “assumption is that we should seek to create a banding and assessment regime that prioritises offences related to public safety. This may or may not necessitate the development of a sliding scale of bandings.”

Accurate recording of crime in this area is the main factor in determining the level and type of victim support that an individual receives. It’s therefore essential, believes the Home Office, that police forces are able to achieve a high degree of accuracy for which they can be publically accountable through banded assessment.”

Examining the question of data accuracy

ACPO will now conduct a piece of work to examine the questions of data accuracy, compliance and audit in the context of maintaining a primary focus on serious crime and managing bureaucracy set against the cost considerations of the setting of a minimum threshold for compliance. Its findings will be duly considered this month by the Home Office and the relevant ACPO Performance Management Business Area for ratification and implementation post-April 2010.

From May, force level data quality reviews will use the agreed banding system. Self-assessments will be sampled and tested annually on a risk-assessed basis in consultation with ACPO and the NPIA.

In addition, the Government will ask HMIC and ACPO to ensure that quantitative estimates of non-compliance are subjected, on a risk assessed basis, to a qualitative assessment as to whether the non-compliant records demonstrate unacceptable practice as opposed to administrative failures in record keeping.

Command and control: crime recording systems

The third recommendation focuses on force systems. In short, police forces should ensure that their crime-recording system modus operandi contain sufficient information for a decision to be made on the correct crime classification.

The Home Office states: “We agree fully that there is a need to establish consistency of practice across police forces on the boundaries and components of ‘sufficient information’.”

As such, Johnson will ask the NPIA to take this forward as part of the exemplification of Best Practice work it is doing in support of the Government’s response to the HMIC recommendations in a more general context. Outcomes from this work will be circulated to force crime registrars from February.

The Home Office is also working with HMIC to determine the review requirement in this area. Forces will be required to review compliance as part of their internal quality assurance processes. Compliance may also be monitored externally on a sample basis as part of the general HMIC inspection and audit process.

Home Office Counting Rules

The Government has made a commitment to improve the consistency of the Home Office Counting Rules, with some additional wording (from April 2010) in the paragraph relevant to the rule as follows:

“For the minority of offences where there is no specific guidance contained within the rules, then it is appropriate that the crime type chosen should be the one with which a suspect would be charged given the information available at the time of recording”

The reclassification of a crime must be supported by sufficient evidence on the crime report. This means that the justification and process for the reclassification must be fully documented on the crime recording system to demonstrate the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process.

The Home Office will be asking expect force crime registrars to monitor compliance at force level. Compliance may also be monitored externally on a sample basis as part of the HMIC inspection and audit process.

The classification of ‘Violence against the Person’ offences generates some 200 queries from force crime registrars annually, and is currently supported by three separate flowcharts on the Home Office Extranet site. HMIC has considered that three charts made the process overly complex for frontline officers.

With delivery partners, the Home Office has identified a single flowchart to assist the already established process. The flowchart relates to the classification of key offences in the arena of public safety, and will be “subject to rigorous scrutiny”.

January 2010 : submission to the Home Office Counting Rules Working Group
February 2010: scrutiny by the National Crime Recording Steering Group
March 2010: if approved, flowchart to be uploaded on Extranet.
April 2010: flowchart may also be included within Home Office
Counting Rules as additional reference point (its inclusion would not signify a change to the Home Office Counting Rules)

Benefit in attempting further clarification

In terms of injury clarity, HMIC made this recommendation to draw attention to the importance of enforcing and checking the clarity of the definition boundaries between common assault and assault with bodily harm. The recording practice in relation to minor injuries is already included under Classification 8G (2 of 3) and Classification 105A (1 of 1).

The Home Office has consulted with its delivery partners and doesn’t think that there’s any additional benefit in attempting further clarification. “However, we understand that front line officers must be supported in making this distinction. We will ask force crime registrars to ensure that the information that’s available already is promoted actively to front line officers through training and guidance channels. Compliance may also be monitored externally on a sample basis as part of the HMIC inspection and audit process.”

Recommendations on legislation

Johnson feels that Jack Straw’s Ministry of Justice and the Home Office should consider a review of the 1861 Offences against the Person Act legislation. The Ministry of Justice is the Government lead on Act. The Home Office would provide support and input into any review process that were to be led by the Ministry of Justice.

A review of the 1861 Act would comprise a significant investment in terms of resources over a number of years. “Before we could commit to such a step,” suggests the Home Office missive, “we would have to have sufficient evidence of significant problems in practice on the ground as well as in respect of the rigorous compilation of crime statistics in this area to justify the investment.”

The Law Commission consulted on the Act in 1992, and published a report on it in1993. This was followed by a Government consultation in 1998. This earlier work is now out of date.

“We would need to commission a new review exercise which would seek to establish the link between the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act and obstacles to effective policing in practice, as well as to seek to define a system that classifies offences in support of 21st Century policing before we could bring forward proposals for legislation.”

The Home Office recognises that the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is causing some concern in the police service. "We agree that bringing rigour to crime statistics is desirable and important, both in itself and to ensure public trust. However, these points alone are not a sufficient reason for reviewing and revising a major piece of legislation."

As for next steps here, the Home Office has invited the NPIA to support ACPO in the development of the business case and evidence base. ACPO will lead a workshop in February involving the NPIA, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and HMIC to support the development of the evidence base.

Following the workshop, the Ministry of Justice – in consultation with the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service – will consider the case for reviewing the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, and how any action might be taken forward. Careful consideration would be afforded to any evidence submitted in consultation with Stakeholders and delivery partners.

Data quality: what needs to be assessed?

The crime recording decision-making process (CRDMP) should be appropriately endorsed before closure of incidents on the system in compliance of national standards.

An incident may be reported to the police and which may appear to be criminal. For example, a member of the public might make a 999 call in respect of a fight going on in a town centre. If, however, the fight has broken up before the police arrive, and there are neither injuries nor damage visible, it may not be possible to investigate the reported incident further.

HMIC has expressed concern that front line officers did not always support closure of incidents with sufficient explanation. “This is a decision that must have a supporting narrative and accurate information.”

The Home Secretary feels that this recommendation cuts across a range of specialist roles including CCTV Control Room staff, force crime and incident registrars together with the Home Office and NPIA who have responsibility for the National Crime Recording Standard and the National Standard for Incident Recording.

“We will expect police forces to take action to strengthen their internal procedures as a first step by June 2010.”

Force crime registrars have overall responsibility for ensuring the appropriate level of endorsement of the decision-making process before the closure of incidents on the system. “We will require force crime registrars to monitor the process as part of the force level data quality control.

Compliance may also be monitored externally on a sample basis as part of the HMIC inspection and audit process.

An assessment of training

The Home Office National Crime Registrar’s team needs to provide a clear and concise outline of national protocols to support the role and primacy of the Home Office Counting Rules. This should include the use of practical examples to develop understanding and assist in the consistent application of the Home Office Counting Rules across all forces.

Force crime registrars have the key role in the correct application of the counting rules in crime recording. In support of this, it is essential that the roles of the force performance manager and the force crime registrar are separate. It’s also essential that the latter has the capability and capacity to perform their role, and is empowered to make decisions on recorded data that will maintain its accuracy and integrity.

The Government will support force crime registrars in their role by ensuring the role specification is reworked to reflect the level of responsibility they carry and to empower their decision-making. “We will invite the NPIA to lead on this, and to bring recommendations to the Home Office and the ACPO Performance Management Business Area in February.”

The Home Office “will support force crime registrars with refresher training at regular intervals. The next date for a one-day seminar for all registrars is already set for 24 March, prior to the publication of the annual crime counting rules on 1 April. We will use this event to quality assure the proposed approach and to standardise understanding of any central materials.”

In addition, ACPO and the NPIA will be invited to undertake some training needs analysis to understand what the long term training requirement might be. “As part of this, we will ask them to determine whether we should seek to implement some form of accreditation regime for force crime registrars, or whether there should a wider nationally accredited course for all staff that evaluate and classify crime, and whether that training could be made available to police authorities in their assurance role on data quality standards. There will clearly be cost and feasibility considerations.”

The findings of this work will be presented to the National Crime Recording Steering Group this coming May. “We will subsequently agree timescales for completion and implementation with the ACPO Performance Management Business Area.”

Changes to the Home Office Counting Rules

From the Government’s point of view, “serious consideration” needs to be given as to how many changes and clarifications to the HOCR the police service can absorb and still maintain consistency.

Clearly, the Home Office Counting Rules need to keep pace with developments which affect them. Changes and clarifications may need to be made as a response to external events such as the setting up of the National Fraud Reporting Centre and Fraud Act 2006.

They may also be made as a result of Stakeholder engagement where justifiable concerns are raised about interpretation and consistency.

According to the Home Office report, since 2005 there have been three substantive changes or clarifications to the Home Office Counting Rules in response to The Fraud Act 2006, changes to non-sanction detections and the clarification made to the offence of GBH with and without intent.

“We accept that if all the very minor adjustments to wording are counted (which, in some cases, amounts to underlining or emboldening words), the figure for changes and clarifications since 2005 reaches 320 as cited by HMIC.”

The Government states: “To respond to this recommendation effectively, we must maintain a clear distinction between strategic level change (which could impact on the operation of the crime recording system) and tactical level change (which is focused on service level improvements and have a low impact assessment).”

In terms of tactical level change, the Government agrees that the unregulated release of tactical changes and clarifications to the Home Office Counting Rules could impact on efficient implementation at the frontline. “We propose to make such changes and clarifications as a release package three times per year just as they are at present.”

Each proposed release package will be scrutinised and endorsed for release by the National Crime Recording Steering Group and published on the Extranet prior to inclusion in the next year’s iteration of the Home Office Counting Rules.

Strategic level changes: a sound business case

At a strategic level, the Home Office accepts that strategic level change should not be made without a sound business case and impact assessment. Strategic level changes impact assessed as significant will only be made on an annual basis from 1 April unless there are exceptional circumstances.

All strategic level changes require ministerial level endorsement. A structured review and reference system will be put in place for proposed strategic changes.

The National Crime Recording Steering Group will make an initial assessment of proposals including thorough consideration of impact. A high level group – on which ACPO, the NPIA and key Stakeholders will be represented – will will then ratify proposals.

Once proposals are ratified they will be referred to ministers for final approval. Strategic level changes will be supported by training workshops for force crime registrars, and centrally developed standardised materials will be made available to them to use in force.

On 16 October last year, the Crown Prosecution Service published revised descriptions of the charging standards for Grievous Bodily Harm with intent and Actual Bodily Harm (among other offences). “We will need to assess the impact of these changes on the Home Office Counting Rules and consider whether the next iteration of the counting rules will need to reflect them. We will use this scenario to test the governance structures we are putting in place to manage changes too the counting rules.”