Agenda item

A statement will be read out by Lord Bach at the meeting and Members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

The Police and Crime Commissioner read out the following statement in response to the report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Service (HMICFRS) entitled Leicestershire Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2017:

 

“You will all be aware of the report by HMICFRS, some of you may even have read it, some may have glimpsed the not too flattering headlines.

 

There are a few observations that I would like to make regarding this report and its ‘inadequate’ conclusions.

 

Firstly, while naturally I’m disappointed with the conclusions, I have to say I’m not that surprised.  There are only so many financial efficiencies you can make before they become counter-productive and cracks begin to show.  

 

I’ve discussed what needs to be done to improve matters with the Chief Constable and I’m confident that active steps are being taken to address the key issues

 

I am further reassured that HMI recognises the work to address such recording issues in the future, welcoming the improvements in the scheduling of non-urgent diary appointments to see victims of crime.  Now, all such appointments should take place within 24 hours of the report of a crime.

 

Secondly,  Leicestershire is not an outlier.  There are similar findings for the majority of other forces inspected so far.

 

Why?  Well there are some administrative anomalies that need addressing, but I also think that the constant changes in crime recording are unhelpful – and certainly confusing to the public.

 

Last year every force recorded an increase in reported criminality.  It is expected that this will be repeated this year.  In Leicestershire apparently we have incorrectly recorded around 21K crimes. But, to me, the big question is: have the number of victims increased or is this down to the requirements of the recording mechanism.  In the main, I believe this is purely an administrative increase.

 

Yes, I am aware that some violent crimes were incorrectly categorised and as I’ve said, I am reassured at the work to address this.

 

The most important point, in my view, is to make sure that we are doing the right thing for victims; that we are identifying victims of crime and providing the appropriate support and referral to specialist services where needed and dealing with offenders more effectively than ever.

 

I am confident that the review of services I commissioned this year will see even better services available to all victims of crime.

 

But we also have to look at the overall picture and in common with many other Police Forces we have seen a continual growth in demand which, in short means that we have moved from a “typical day” in which we dealt with around 750 incidents to today’s norm of in excess of 900 – and sometimes well beyond that.

 

I also understand that some of these inaccuracies can be attributed to the change in the crime-recording system, moving to NICHE, and a change in the force operating model designed to produce savings.

 

In essence, this report is not about quality of service, it is a narrative about the integrity of our administrative processes and the confluence between different IT systems.

 

Project Darwin is looking carefully at a number of processes and systems to address this, and other issues, and we will be looking to implement changes that ensure our administrative work in recording crimes is compliant.

 

We believe that there is a need for more specialist units to undertake the body of recording work but resources will need to be found to create such a specialist unit.  Project Darwin will be exploring the best way of achieving this with the least impact on front line visibility.

 

Darwin will also see:

 

·         The establishment of a triage desk in the Contact Management Department. This will triage crimes as they come in and ensure they are allocated to the right team for further investigation

·         The creation of a new Neighbourhood Investigation Unit. The Force currently has a number of centralised teams who investigate crimes. This change will see that investigative function put back out into the neighbourhoods and co-located alongside Neighbourhood Policing Team. It aims to ensure the victims gets a better service and to improve our investigative and local problem solving capability

·         A review of Response Teams. This piece of work is looking at how many resources are in the Priority Response Teams and where response hubs are located. No specific decisions have been made about this as yet, but we do recognise there is a need to increase the number of officers working within this important frontline area of service.

 

Project Darwin aims to implement an evolving policing model focused on improving our performance, effectiveness and customer service. It will also oversee the changes we need to make to our administrative functions in response to the report on the integrity of the crime recording system.

 

HMICFRS will return in 2018 to inspect our progress.  I know that you too will want to hear about that progress, so with that in mind, I think it would be pertinent to bring a report to our December 2017 meeting if that is alright with you Mr Chairman.”

 

Arising from Panel members’ questions the following points were noted:

 

(i)        Concerns were raised that contrary to the PCC’s statement the problem of inaccurate recording was not as a result of underfunding but more related to procedural and training issues within Leicestershire Police. Members were also of the view that the fact that other Police Forces had received similar criticisms from HMICFRS did not excuse the fact that Leicestershire Police had been rated as inadequate with regards to crime recording. In response it was stated that Leicestershire Police did acknowledge that further education of Police officers was required with regard to crime recording and all staff were going through refresher training.

 

(ii)       In response to a question the PCC confirmed that prior to the inspection by HMICFRS he was not aware that there was a problem with the way Leicestershire Police were recording crime. In fact Leicestershire Police themselves did not know there was a problem and it was the view of Leicestershire Police that the guidance provided by the Home Office on the new methodology of crime recording had been inadequate. Nevertheless, the PCC stated that he was always present at debriefings from HMICFRS and the Chief Constable had informed him once HMICFRS had raised the issue relating to crime recording.

 

(iii)      There had been no concerns raised by HMICFRS with regard to the reporting of acquisitive crimes such as burglary.

 

(iv)      In response to a question of how the PCC was going to monitor the accuracy of crime recording by Leicestershire Police going forward, it was explained that there was an audit regime in place and the quality assurance team which had been disbanded as part of efficiency savings would now be re-instated.

 

(v)       Reassurance was given that although a crime was not recorded every single time a victim of modern slavery who had been forced into prostitution was forced to have sexual intercourse, that victim was treated as a rape victim by Leicestershire Police and provided with all the support that a rape victim would normally get.

 

(vi)      Concerns were also raised that Leicestershire Police were not responding to every report of Domestic Violence relating to particular complainants; instead they were treating several reports relating to particular complainants over a period of time as one crime. In response the PCC stated that whilst he could not guarantee that this problem had been resolved immediately, work was ongoing to implement a system that would fulfil the reporting requirements set out by HMICFRS.

 

(vii)    With regard to the statement in the HMICFRS report that some Leicestershire police officers were reluctant to record some types of crime that young people may have committed in order not to criminalise them, Members endorsed this pragmatic approach but raised concerns about the apparent lack of a clear policy on this across the Force.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)       That the PCC’s response to the HMICFRS report be noted;

 

(b)       That the PCC submit a report to a future meeting of the Panel regarding progress made by Leicestershire Police in addressing the concerns raised by HMICFRS with regard to the accuracy of crime recording.