audit of crime recording - avonandsomerset-pcc.gov.uk · crime recording weeks 13 - 16 2015 7 1.1...

Audit of Crime Recording The National Standard for Incident Recording and Incident to Crime

Conversion

Weeks 13- 16 2015

An audit report to assess compliance to the recording of NSIR and NCRS in Avon and

Somerset Constabulary

Sharon Stewart

Communications Quality Assurance Officer

Extension: 54571

Crime Recording Weeks 13 - 16 2015

2

Introduction

In 2009 after a full review conducted by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) on behalf

of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), The National Standard for Incident Recording

(NSIR) was introduced. The findings of the NPIA were that police forces were recording crime

differently from each other meaning that each force was inconsistent with the next.

The principle aim of NSIR is “to ensure that all incidents are risk assessed at the earliest opportunity

leading to an appropriate response as well as being recorded in a consistent and accurate manner to

help the police and local communities tackle anti-social behaviour and other issues”.

To ensure this audit has been carried out impartially the Data Quality Audit Manual methodology

has been used. Firstly to extract the sample data from STORM Command and Control System and

secondly to apply three tests; Minimum Data Standards, Closing Codes (defined by the National

Incident Category List (NICL)) and Qualifiers. The sample has also been tested against NCRS ensuring

that if there is a crime within the log that it has been recognised and recorded and classified

correctly in line within the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR). The NCRS was introduced after a

report conducted by ACPO found that forces had a recording rate of crime between 55-82%, it has

twin aims of being victim focussed and maintaining consistency of recording across all forces.

When forces are compliant with both the NSIR and the NCRS the public to have confidence in police

crime figures and forces can be confident they are being victim focussed.


3

Key Findings

Areas of good compliance

The method of reporting was completed in 100% of the incident logs sampled

99% of the logs contained sufficient information to justify the nature of the incident

The date and time of when the incident occurred is recorded on STORM correctly in 90%

of logs sampled. Although STORM automatically stamps the log with the time the log

was created this is not always the time of the incident or crime they are referring to.

This should be made clear within the log

The correct location of the incident was recorded in 97% of the logs sampled

Opportunities

The most suitable closing code was selected in 49% of the incident logs sampled

74% of logs had the correct qualifier/s applied

The date of birth was recorded in 24% of the logs sampled. Since the implementation of

Niche this is ever more important as the crime should be recorded at the first point of

contact.

Of the logs where we had enough information to determine that a notifiable offence had

occurred, 52.5% resulted in a crime being recorded. This is poor, however is not a

reflection of our overall incident to crime conversion compliance as the code

combinations selected were known to be at a high risk of failing the audit.

Points of Note

The data used for this reporting period was between 31st August and 13th September and 14th

September and 27th September. Niche went live on the 22nd September and so some of the data in

the final two weeks includes crimes reported after this time.

The next report issued will contain data entirely from STORM and Niche between 28th September

and 25th October. An interim highlights sheet will be produced week commencing 9th November.


4

Crime and Incident Recording Action Plan

This audit is being managed via for the Force Crime and Incident Recording Action Plan which can be

viewed by contacting the FCIR team, due to the size of the document. The action plan is soon to be

published on the force Intranet and details will follow in due course.

The actions from this report are as follows:

Action Ref Action Action Owner Review Date

FCIR30 Upon the implementation of

Niche crimes will be

transferred to Niche on the

manual push of a button by

call handlers before

transferring the call to

dispatch. This will achieve

the NCRS rule to record a

crime as soon as possible

after one is confirmed.

Therefore there will be no

recommendation in this

report to improve compliance

to the 24 hour provision.

Suzannah Polley 22/09/2015 –

This will be

monitored as

Niche is

implemented

and processes

embedded.

CR12 Report to be written with a

view to providing HOCR

training to call handlers and

dispatchers. When a call is

taken the call handler now

has the responsibility to

identify it as a crime and

“push” it to Niche. For this

reason they will need more

knowledge around HOCR and

NCRS to make these

decisions.

Suzannah Polley 22/09/2015 –

This is pending

within the Crime

and Incident

Recording Action

Plan.

CR8 Guidance to be given to

Communications on national

definitions of closing codes as

per NSIR and examples. This

will be circulated to

champions, explained and

then cascaded.

28/08/2015: Five code

Emily Taylor / Sharon

Stewart

Ongoing


5

definitions have been

circulated to some

Communications FCIR

Champions and these will be

distributed amongst teams.

FCIR92 Feedback is given to staff

who have made mistakes in

relation to NCRS & NSIR

whilst audits are being

completed and where

possible these are rectified.

An escalation process is in

place as these are sent to

supervisors and recorded in a

log.

Sharon Stewart / FCIR

Team

Ongoing

FCIR93 Reports to be circulated to

Communications Supervisors

to provide additional learning

to staff.

Suzannah Polley /

Emily Taylor

Ongoing


6

Audit Findings – The Detail

The data used in this audit has been deemed high risk by the Force Crime and Incident Registrar

Team. It has focused on STORM logs with an opening code in the crime theme and closed with one

from either, Public Safety and Welfare, Administration, Anti-Social Behaviour or Transport.

The code combinations looked at in this audit are as follows;

No. Initial Incident Type Disposal Code Sample Size

1 CPO – Public Order AEN – ASB Environmental 1

2 CPO – Public Order ANU – ASB Nuisance 20

3 CPO – Public Order APE – ASB Personal 1

4 CPO – Public Order CPO – Public Order 16

5 PSI - Suspicious ANU – ASB Nuisance 19

6 TRI – Road Related Incident ANU – ASB Nuisance 16

7 CCA – Child Abduction APE – ASB Personal 1

8 CCA – Child Abduction PCS – Concern for Safety 2

9 PMH – Mental Disorder ANU – ASB Nuisance 1

10 CVP - Assault PHC – Hoax Calls 3

11 CSF – Sexual Offences PCS – Concern for Safety 7

12 CSF – Sexual Offences PHC – Hoax Calls 2

13 CSF – Sexual Offences PSC – Suspicious Circumstances 10

14 PCS – Suicidal ANU – ASB Nuisance 1

15 PCW – Concern for Welfare PCD – Civil Disputes 4

16 ASB – Anti-Social Behaviour PCD – Civil Disputes 12

17 PSI - Suspicious PCD – Civil Disputes 12

18 TRC - RTC PCD – Civil Disputes 2

19 TRI – Road Related Incident ANU – ASB Nuisance 23

20 PDC – Domestic Incident PHC – Hoax Calls 2

21 PCW – Concern for Welfare PHC – Hoax Calls 1

Code numbers between 1 and 13 used data taken from the 31st August and 13th September, and

codes between 14 and 21 the data used were between 14th September and 27th September. Codes

deemed to be high risk were selected by the Deputy FCIR to be audited.

Please note Niche was implemented on the 22nd September.


7

1.1 Method of Reporting – EXCELLENT

It is important to record the method of reporting that the informant has used to contact the police,

this is because it helps us to identify routes that the public are using to report crimes and incidents

to police. It will also help us to identify repeat 999 calls from the same caller and to determine

whether the system is being abused as it is not always clear from the log text.

The compliance here is excellent.

The following are a list of the options available to the call taker when creating a log;

112 999

Alarm Ambulance

Bleeper

Fax

HA (Highways Authority)

Email

Fire

In Person

Radio Social Services

SOS Tel

1.2 Informant Full Name – GOOD

In some cases where the informant wishes to stay anonymous or is uncooperative with the call

handler it may not be possible to obtain their full name. It is important to take the full name of the

informant as having only first names, or surnames, does not make that person easily traceable. For

example there may be more than one Mr Smith living at the same address. Compliance in this area

is good.

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

100.0%156

All

156

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

94.9%156

All

148


8

1.3 Informant Contact Address – GOOD

This is very similar to 1.2; ‘Informant Full Name’. The compliance rate is almost identical between

the two areas and they both hold similar risks in terms of tracing the original informant.

1.4 Correct Status of Informant - FAIR

This is an important element of reporting that needs to be captured within the STORM log.

The status of the informant being looked for was one of the following;

Victim Witness

Other Agency Staff on Duty

Third Party Other

It is important to know the status of the informant as it can enable us to later identify witnesses to

major incidents for example. Following recommendations from previous audits this field has also

been made mandatory and the compliance has gone from poor to fair. The reason this is not

excellent is that the incorrect selection is being made for some logs.

1.5 Location of Incident – EXCELLENT

The location of the incident is being recorded on STORM in almost all of the logs sampled. It is

essential that the police know the location of the incident not only for dispatch purposes but also

later on for intelligence.

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

91.7%156

All

143

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

81.4%156

All

127

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

97.4%156

All

152


9

1.6 Date and Time of When the Incident Occurred - GOOD

The date and time of when the incident was reported to police is recorded automatically by STORM;

however sometimes this is not the same as the time that the incident occurred. In most cases this is

made clear in the text of the log however very occasionally it is not. It is important that the police

are aware of when crimes and incidents have occurred to enable them to investigate effectively and

respond appropriately.

1.7 Sufficient Information to Justify the Nature of the Incident –

EXCELLENT

In some cases the detail on the log is not sufficient to identify whether or not a crime has occurred.

If the informant is not willing, or not capable of giving this detail, then the attending officer should

obtain this and record a closure on the log which satisfies whether or not a notifiable offence has

occurred.

In doing this audit some records contained information that were insufficient to justify whether or

not a notifiable offence occurred, these are some examples;

The log has been created via an officer on Brio. The only information on the log is that a

male on a skateboard tried to get past a large group of rugby fans and ‘verbals’ were

exchanged. There were no complaints. Limited information to establish the incident details.

The log has been opened and closed as public order. The niche occurrence is for an assault

although it's not been classified.

Informant is reporting that he took in a lodger in September. He was assured by police that

we would ask her to remove her belongings and return keys. Informant is concerned that

she is entering his property randomly and this is causing him stress. He is asking for police to

assist. There is not enough information to establish any offences. It is not clear when the

lodger left the address, or whether she has actually been asked to return the keys and what

her response was i.e. is there a condition attached to her returning them? insufficient

information

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

90.4%156

All

141

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

97.4%156

All

152


10

1.8 Was the Correct Opening Code Used - POOR

This audit looks at whether the correct NSIR theme has been chosen for the opening code used on

STORM. Our compliance in this area is 75%. As the opening code selected has an impact on the call

script used by the call handler it is important that they select the correct one in order to be asking

the right questions.

1.9 Overall pass to Minimum Data Standards - POOR

The Minimum Data Standards are set within the Data Quality Audit Manual for NSIR. Each element

of these has been tested within this audit and the details are broken down within the previous

sections between 1.1 and 1.8. The overall compliance for Minimum Data Standards is poor; this is

due to a combination of errors within the last eight points.

Good data quality within police records is essential to ensure our records are accurate and up to

date.

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

75.0%156

All

117

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

53.2%156

All

83


11

1.10 Was the correct Closing Code applied? – POOR

The National Incident Category List (NCIL) is used to categorise incidents consistently between police

forces. The overall compliance for this area of the audit is poor. The potential consequences of this

are that data extracted from STORM could be misleading. This data is shared with partner agencies

and it is important that they have a clear picture of the crimes and incidents in their area to target

their resources appropriately.

Compliance here is poor and there is significant room for improvement. A lot of the failures in this

part of the audit are mirrored in the failure to record crime where it should be.

Examples of some of the failures are as follows;

Caller is reporting a drunk female in the practice waiting room being verbally abusive to

staff and patients. Her carer has walked out as he was also verbally abused. Closure

states the female was unhappy as her prescription request was declined, area tour no

trace. The log was closed as ASB environmental. This should be recorded as a public

order and closed as such.

Caller approached landlord of pub in relation to some suspicious drug behaviour

happening in the toilets. The landlord got annoyed and barred her. The lads who were

in the toilets followed caller out of the pub and were abusive to her. She wants to

remain anonymous and is reporting for information only. She thinks there is suspicious

activity of this nature happening at the pub regularly. The log was closed as ASB

nuisance. This should be closed as suspicious circumstances

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

49.4%156

All

77


12

1.11 Were the correct Qualifiers applied? – POOR

The NSIR has a small list of defined qualifiers alongside a number of optional qualifiers listed as well

as their own. Qualifiers can enable the force to extract data on different types of incidents, for

example those that are prejudice related (HATE). There is no opening or closing codes relating to

prejudice incidents and so these are necessary to identify such incidents.

The qualifiers we were looking to find in this audit were as follows;

Prejudice: Disability Alcohol

Prejudice: Racial Drugs

Prejudice: Religion or Belief Mental Health

Prejudice: Sexual Orientation Youth Related

Prejudice: Transgender Olympics

A qualifier we were also looking for was Domestic Related as it is important to capture all domestic

related incidents and crimes even when the domestic opening and closing codes are not used.

1.12 Overall Pass to NSIR – POOR

The overall compliance to NSIR is 19.9%, this is poor. The reason for this is spread across many

elements of NSIR, for example the minimum data standards, correct closing code and qualifier use.

This is a broad training requirement that also relates to the National Crime Recording Standards; as if

a crime had been identified by the person closing the log the closing code is more likely to be

correct.

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

73.7%156

All

115

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

19.9%156

All

31


13

1.13 Was there enough information in the log to determine

whether or not a notifiable offence occurred? – GOOD

It is essential that enough information is obtained where possible at the first point of contact from

the caller to allow us to make an accurate crime recording decision and to know how to respond to

the report operationally. The overall compliance in this area was good. Below are the breakdowns

for the weeks tested.

In weeks 13 & 14 compliance was excellent in eight of the combinations. The remaining five ranged

from poor to good compliance. Some examples of these failures are as follows;

Caller reports a group of 15 people, including a pregnant woman fighting. Men are punching

women. Ambulance was called and caller said that somebody would be seriously injured.

Caller was spoken to by attending officer and the closure states a large group were having

words and have now moved on. The caller told officers that his girlfriend and sister were

involved. The log was closed to this effect. More information is required on whether the

girlfriend or sister were assaulted, was anyone else in the group known, is the pregnant lady

ok, did ambulance attend and what was the outcome? Insufficient details in this log to

establish any offences

CCTV has reported a disturbance, and has advised that someone is being chased. Officers

state they are with a male who has an ankle injury. PNC checks carried out on a male, and a

closure is given stating that officers have spoken to a few people involved in the disturbance.

It was a group of males arguing over a girl, there are no offences. The log is closed. This is

insufficient. How had the male sustained an ankle injury? Was he assaulted? Did anyone

confirm that they had been assaulted? Further information is required

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

90.4%156

All

141

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

CPO - AEN APO - ANU CPO - APE CPO - CPO PSI - ANU TRI - ANU

Yes 1 18 1 15 17 16

% Yes 100.0% 90.0% 100.0% 93.8% 89.5% 100.0%Sample Size 1 20 1 16 19 16

CCA - APE CCA - PCS PMH - ANU CVP - PHC CSF - PCS CSF - PHC

Yes 0 2 1 3 3 2

% Yes 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 42.9% 100.0%Sample Size 1 2 1 3 7 2

CSF - PSC

Yes 10

% Yes 100.0%Sample Size 10

Weeks 13 & 14

79

79.8%99


14

Caller states her daughter is being held against her will by a 47yr old and a 14yr old.

Ongoing family feud. Daughter has phoned caller in a distressed state and told her this. The

log is quite confusing. A teacher had found daughter and taken her back to school. The

closure states that the school are dealing with this by RJ, and it’s an ongoing feud between 2

pupils. No requirement for police. Log closed as ASB personal. Insufficient closure. What

had actually happened? Was the female held against her will? Has there been any

assault/malicious communications etc.? More information is required.

In weeks 15 & 16 the compliance was good in the main. The three combinations containing errors

are PCW - PCD, ASB - PCD and PSI - PCD. Examples of failures in these combinations are as follows;

Caller reports that he has given tenant notice to move out and the tenant has refused to do

so. He is giving caller verbal abuse and threats. Unable to attend within time frame given.

Message left on callers answerphone to recall if still require assistance. Log closed. This

could be malicious communications/public order but more information is required to

establish this.

This was a misrouted 999 call to Gwent. Staff at a hand car wash has reported that there is a

female going crazy at the location, driving at everyone. There is a possibility this incident is

linked to a cross referenced domestic but this isn’t clear. An entry on the log states that

there has been an incident involving a female and car, and the female has now gone on her

way. The closure is given as no offences; believe this was a civil argument. The log was

closed as civil dispute. Insufficient information to establish exactly what had happened and

whether there were any offences.

Caller reporting bailiffs outside her house at the moment. The bailiff has tried to run over

her uncle and has threatened to forcefully enter the property. There was some dispute over

property at the address and both parties were arguing about the ownership. The closure on

the log states that the bailiff had left prior to attendance. The family have been spoken to

and been advised to recall should there be any further problems. No offences. The log was

closed as civil dispute. There isn’t any mention of the incident involving the bailiff trying to

run over uncle, and insufficient information to establish any offences

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

PCS - ANU PCW - PCD ASB - PCD PSI - PCD TRC - PCD TRI - ANU

Yes 1 3 10 11 2 22

% Yes 100.0% 75.0% 83.3% 91.7% 100.0% 95.7%Sample Size 1 4 12 12 2 23

PDC - PHC PCW - PHC

Yes 2 1

% Yes 100.0% 100.0%Sample Size 2 1

57

Weeks 15 & 16

52

91.2%


15

1.14 Did the incident result in a Notifiable Offence?

This figure does not include those logs that did not contain sufficient information to make this

decision.

In weeks 13 & 14 several combinations contained a crime which is similar to weeks 15 & 16 as

follows;

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

All

40

28.4%141

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size


Yes 1 6 1 14 3 1

% Yes 100.0% 33.3% 100.0% 93.3% 17.6% 6.3%Sample Size 1 18 1 15 17 16


Yes N/A 0 0 1 3 2

% Yes N/A 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 100.0%Sample Size N/A 2 1 3 3 2

CSF - PSC

Yes 4


40.4%89

36

Weeks 13 & 14

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size


Yes 0 0 2 1 0 1

% Yes 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 9.1% 0.0% 4.5%Sample Size 1 3 10 11 2 22

PDC - PHC PCW - PHC

Yes 0 0

% Yes 0.0% 0.0%Sample Size 2 1

Weeks 15 & 16

4

7.7%52


16

1.15 Was a Crime Report generated? – POOR

Only 47.5% of records where a crime was reported contained evidence that a crime report had been

generated. Failing to record crimes accurately can damage public confidence in police figures and

can mean that victims do not get the support they are entitled to. The creation of a crime report can

act as a “trigger” for agencies such as Victim Support to contact victims of crime.

The recent HMIC report published in November 2014 has shown that Avon and Somerset Police had

compliance of 67.0% ‘Incident to Crime’ conversion. That was based on incidents between October

2012 and November 2013. This report is based on 31st August – 27th September data and only

focuses on code combinations deemed to be high risk, this therefore is not a direct comparison.

The compliance for each individual category is as follows;

Weeks 13 & 14;

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

47.5%40

All

19

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size


Yes 1 3 1 13 1 0

% Yes 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 92.9% 33.3% 0.0%Sample Size 1 6 1 14 3 1


Yes N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0

% Yes N/A N/A N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Sample Size N/A N/A N/A 1 3 2

CSF - PSC

Yes 2


Weeks 13 & 14

19

52.8%36


17

Weeks 15 & 16;

These results are of great concern however they do help us to steer training accurately and show us

where our specific areas of concern are. This is as opposed to looking at an entire opening or closing

code and not knowing where the pockets of non-compliance are.

Some examples of failures across the four weeks are as follows;

Report of a large fight in the pub. Glasses being thrown around. Group left prior to police

arrival and no complaints made. This should be recorded as public order or even criminal

damage depending on whether any property was damaged.

Male has been seen running around with a metal bollard in his hands, swinging it around.

The male is wearing a boiler suit with a grey scarf covering his face. There is an entry on the

log from the FIM who states that this is likely to be Charley, who is known to conduct

‘displays’ on the side of the road to entertain passers-by. Charley suffers MH issues and has

never presented a danger to the public previously. An area tour is conducted with no trace.

This should be recorded as a public order.

Caller is reporting being confronted by a group of males. One has grabbed her shoulders -

no injury. Group think caller has been beating her dog, but she has been training him.

Closure states no offences disclosed. Log closed as civil dispute - this should be recorded as

an assault

Caller reports that he has been in hospital for a week and come home to find his property in

a skip and valuables stolen. Believe landlord has done this. Caller was advised this is civil.

He is reporting a theft which should be recorded.

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size


Yes N/A N/A 0 0 N/A 0

% Yes N/A N/A 0.0% 0.0% N/A 0.0%Sample Size N/A N/A 12 12 N/A 23

PDC - PHC PCW - PHC

Yes N/A N/A

% Yes N/A N/ASample Size N/A N/A

4

Weeks 15 & 16

0

0.0%


18

1.16 Crime report generated within 24 hours? – POOR

In this part of the audit the NCRS guidance on recording crime has been used. The NCRS states that

“a crime must be recorded as soon as possible after the person receiving the report is satisfied that

it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed”. Recording of crimes should not be

delayed in order to carry out an investigation, for example dispatching an officer, and should be

recorded on the same day the report is received or within 24 hours of when it was received.

As this is a change from having a maximum of 72 hours to record a crime a trial is being piloted on

North East Local Policing Area. The reason for this is that at present our Command and Control

system, STORM and Crime and Intelligence Database, Guardian do not “talk” to each other meaning

double keying is required by Communications staff in order to achieve the rule. In September the

force moved to Niche. This happened towards of the reporting period for this audit. The advantage

of moving to Niche for this area of compliance is that the system will “talk” to STORM and the

process can be completed without placing significant additional demand on Communications staff.

The agreed processes once Niche has embedded will be that crimes are classified at first point of

contact and not delayed for the deployment of resources.

Our compliance in this area of business shown in this audit is 19.0%. Due to the extremely small

sample size it is difficult to say whether this is a fair representation of our force wide compliance.

The next audit to be completed will be based on data entirely post Niche Go-Live.

1.17 Was the Crime Report correctly classified? – FAIR

All crime reports are classified within the Incident Assessment Unit (IAU). This part of the audit has

shown that all but three of the crimes raised were classified correctly; however as this sample size is

so small the score of ‘Fair’ may not be an accurate representation of the overall compliance.

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

19.0%21

All

4

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

85.7%21

All

18


19

1.17 Was the date of birth of the victim/informant recorded within

the STORM log? - POOR

In the 156 logs sampled the date of birth of the informant/victim has only been captured in 38 cases.

As crimes are being recorded more at the first point of contact and often as skeleton reports it is

essential that the necessary information to prevent duplicates and identify victims is present.

Please note this is not a requirement of NSIR.

Yes

% Yes

Sample Size

24.4%156

All

38


20

Appendix A: Audit Methodology

The audit was completed by the Communications Quality Assurance Officer with the oversight of the

Force Crime and Incident Registrar (FCIR) team, Strategic Service Improvement (SSI). Once

completed the report will be taken to the Crime and Incident Recording Steering Group where

actions and recommendations are agreed and allocated. The audit has agreement from the Deputy

Chief Constable.

Data Extraction The data was extracted using Business Objects from Avon and Somerset’s Command and Control

System, STORM. Each fortnight code combinations deemed to be high risk were selected and

sample sizes obtained using a sample size calculator which looks at the population size, acceptable

margins of error and confidence intervals which were set at 5.0% and 95.0% respectively. In order to

understand compliance in specific areas the Home Office has recommended through the Data

Quality Assurance Manual that audits are performed in this way.

Systems Used Guardian – Crime and Intelligence

STORM – Incident Management

Grading Criteria The audit is graded in line with the criteria set within the Data Quality Assurance Manual as defined

by the Home Office.

95.0% and above: EXCELLENT

Between 90.0% - 94.9%: GOOD

Between 80.0% - 89.9%: FAIR

79.9% and below: POOR

Documents Home Office Counting Rules

National Crime Recording Standards

National Standard for Incident Recording

Home Office Data Quality Assurance Manual 2015

Standards Internal Auditors are bound to work with integrity, credibility, independence and impartially. The

‘Institute for Internal Auditors’ defines those standards to which have been applied to the audit

process. These can be viewed at the following link: IIA Internal Audit Standards.

The Code of Ethics are also applied to our daily business alongside the audit process.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/340315/count-general-july-2014.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/counting-rules-for-recorded-crime

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116658/count-nsir11.pdf

https://www.iia.org.uk/resources/global-guidance/international-standards/attribute-standards/

http://www.college.police.uk/en/20972.htm

Compiled by Sharon Stewart: Communications Quality Assurance Officer

Appendix B: Crime Recording Score Card

Due to the size of the crime recording Score Card it is being kept with the FCIR Team, if you would

like a copy please contact on #FCIR (Audit)

Appendix C: Examples of Audit Failures

Caller statues should be third party not victim. Concern for her autistic son who has packed his bags and about to leave property – The caller was advised by CAMHS to call police as her son is vulnerable, he was sectioned a couple of nights ago. The closure on log states that child returned to the address, and no issues. This should be closed as a concern with a vulnerable child qualifier and mental health qualifier. Caller is reporting ongoing issues with neighbour. Caller feels scared as does her young children. Neighbour kicking at door whilst caller on the phone and shouting through the letter box. PCSO attended and states no damage and no other offences. Log closed as civil. This could be harassment. This should also have a vulnerable child qualifier due to caller’s children being affected. Caller is reporting an abandoned vehicle on an access road to an explosives site. Enquiries show that the keeper lives on the road opposite to where vehicle has been left therefore this is AIO. The log was closed as a civil dispute. This should be closed as a civil dispute. Reports of vehicles doing wheel spins in the rugby club car park – the log was closed as a road related offences, however, this is private land therefore road related offence is incorrect. Caller status has been selected as victim, but should be witness. Caller reports a group of males have thrown a chair out of the pub and are now fighting. There is a group of 10, with more joining in. Glasses are also being thrown. Closure states one party has left and the other party states this was a slight disagreement. No complaints. This should be recorded as public order or possibly criminal damage depending on what has happened to the chair and glasses that were thrown. Caller is reporting that a male is being restrained by security. Security releases the male who still refuses to leave. Officers attend and state there are no issues. The log was opened as public order and closed as ASB personal. This is incorrect; the log should be opened as ASB and closed as ASB nuisance. The caller reports being pushed by a bouncer, who is also being abusive. Caller is pregnant. The log was opened as a public order but should be opened as assault. Caller status is victim not third party as selected.