Crime recording:

A matter of fact
An interim report of the inspection of crime
data integrity in police forces in England
and Wales

© HMIC 2014

www.hmic.gov.uk

ISBN: 978-1-78246-391-7
Contents

Glossary 3
1. Summary 12
Emerging themes ..................................................................................... 15
2. Introduction 17
Terms of reference ................................................................................... 18
Why accurate crime-recording matters .................................................... 20
Public trust in crime data .......................................................................... 21
Previous HMIC inspections ...................................................................... 24
Other considerations ................................................................................ 26
3. How do the police record crime? 28
Assembling crime data statistics .............................................................. 28
Crime-recording counting rules and standards ........................................ 32
4. The method of inspection 45
The three inspection stages ..................................................................... 45
The approach to auditing crime records................................................... 47
Developing a clear picture........................................................................ 49
5. The inspection to date 51
6. Emerging themes 52
Strengths .................................................................................................. 54
Weaknesses............................................................................................. 55
Performance pressures ............................................................................ 67
7. Next steps 69
Annex A – Terms of reference 70
Annex B – Force inspection dates 74
Annex C – Methodology for the national audit 75

2
Glossary

accuracy in the context of HMIC’s audit of crime records for

this inspection, the number of crimes that are
correctly recorded as a crime, as a proportion of
the total that should be recorded; accuracy also
refers to the correct classification of crime

accurate crime record a crime record that has been correctly recorded
according to the Home Office Counting Rules
(HOCR) and the National Crime Recording
Standard (NCRS); this means it must be recorded
as a crime, classified according to the correct
crime type for the offence, and assigned the
correct category according to the counting rules

ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers

additional verifiable information which can be verified by the police to

information show that a recorded crime did not occur, thereby
enabling the police to reclassify a recorded crime
as a no-crime (HOCR, General Rules Section C,
No Crimes)

Association of Chief Police a professional association of police officers of

Officers Assistant Chief Constable rank and above, and
their police staff equivalents, in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland; leads and coordinates
operational policing nationally; a company limited
by guarantee and a statutory consultee; its
president is a full-time post under the Police
Reform Act 2002

audit the means of checking upon and monitoring the

accuracy of recorded data in order to oversee the
effectiveness and efficiency of the recording
system and the accuracy of the records it
contains; HMIC audits incident reports to check
whether they should have been reported as
crimes, crime records to check whether they have
been recorded accurately in accordance with the

3
 rules and standards, and no-crime records to
ensure that they have been reclassified correctly

auditable route the route by which a crime is reported and

subsequently logged into the system to create a
crime record that can be checked by internal
police force auditors and also by HMIC auditors.
Predominantly, the auditable route in police forces
is through the IT systems in force crime bureaux
and call-handling centres where crimes are
initially recorded and where each record is
opened and closed at the start and end of an
investigation

Audit Commission a statutory body established first under the Local

Government Finance Act 1982 and latterly
maintained under the consolidating Audit
Commission Act 1998; responsible for auditing a
range of local public bodies with the objective of
ensuring that public money is spent economically,
efficiently and effectively to achieve high quality
local and national services for the public. Its work
covers housing, health, criminal justice and fire
and rescue services. Under the Local Audit and
Accountability Act 2014, it is to be disbanded
during 2015

balance of probability the test applied to determine whether an event

occurred according to whether, on the evidence,
the occurrence of the event was more likely than
not; the HOCR state that: “An incident will be
recorded as a crime (notifiable to the Home
Secretary) for offences against an identified victim
if, on the balance of probability (a) the
circumstances as reported amount to a crime
defined by law (the police will determine this,
based on their knowledge of the law and counting
rules), and (b) there is no credible evidence to the
contrary”

call-handling centre a facility in each police force where call-handlers

answer telephone calls from the public, determine
the circumstances of the incident, decide what

4
 needs to be done by the police, and initiate or
implement that response

Code of Practice for Victims a code, established under the Domestic Violence,
of Crime Crime and Victims Act 2004, which places
obligations on organisations providing services
within the criminal justice system (including the
police) to provide a minimum level of service to
victims of criminal conduct

College of Policing a professional body for policing in England and

Wales, established to set standards of
professional practice, accredit training providers,
promote good practice based on evidence,
provide support to police forces and others in
connection with the protection of the public and
the prevention of crime, and promote ethics,
values and standards of integrity in policing; its
powers to set standards have been conferred by
the Police Act 1996 as amended by the Anti-
social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

crime categories specific groups which bring together crimes of a

similar nature; for example, there are a number of
different crimes of violence which depend on the
severity of the violence used; these all fall within
one general crime category of violence

crime classification categorisation of crimes by the police based on

their understanding of the applicable law and of
what has been reported; the Home Office
Counting Rules require the police to classify the
crime at the time the crime is recorded

crime record record that must be made under the Home Office
Counting Rules in the case of a report of a crime

crime-recording centre a facility in a police force dedicated to taking in

reports of crime and recording them in
accordance with the Home Office Counting Rules

Criminal Records Bureau a public body established under Part V of the

Police Act 1997 to conduct criminal background

5
 checks of people working with children or
vulnerable adults in schools, voluntary
organisations or professional bodies;.
it merged with the Independent Safeguarding
Authority on 1 December 2012 to form the
Disclosure and Barring Service under the
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006

CRDMP crime-recording decision-making process

crime-recording decision- the process within police force crime-recording

making process bureaux, or equivalent facilities, of making final
decisions about the classification and correct
recording of a crime

crime-related incident a record of an incident reported to the police

which would ordinarily amount to a notifiable
crime, but is not recorded as a crime. This can
happen for the following reasons: when the
incident is reported by a third party (not on behalf
of the victim) and the victim declines to confirm a
crime occurred; where the victim cannot be
traced; when the incident is being dealt with and
recorded by another police force; or where the
NCRS or HOCR direct that a crime should not be
recorded (e.g. certain offences which occur in
schools which are required to be dealt with by the
school and not recorded by the police)

Crime Statistics Advisory a non-statutory body which functions as an

Committee advisory body providing independent advice to
the Home Secretary, the Office for National
Statistics and HMIC on matters relating to the
measurement of crime, and the collection and
presentation of crime data for England and Wales

Crime Survey for England a quarterly independent survey of crime

and Wales commissioned by the Office for National Statistics,
involving the collection of information about
people’s experience of crime from several
thousand households in England and Wales;
formerly known as the British Crime Survey

CSAC Crime Statistics Advisory Committee

6
CSEW Crime Survey for England and Wales

DBS Disclosure and Barring Service

dip-sample a small, non-random sample of information; as

such it is not statistically robust but is used as an
information-gathering tool by inspectors

Disclosure and Barring a public body established in 2012 under the

Service Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in the merger of
the functions of the Criminal Records Bureau and
the Independent Safeguarding Authority;
responsible for processing requests for criminal
records checks; deciding whether it is appropriate
for a person to be placed on or removed from a
barred list; placing or removing people from the
DBS children’s barred list and adults’ barred list
for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

evidence-gathering in the context of this inspection, the process at the

core of the work of HMIC inspectors who use
templates to record specific and detailed
information about crime data integrity. Inspectors
work in pairs during the main interviews, asking
questions and taking notes in order to complete
the templates and assemble substantial and
accurate evidence to support their findings

FCR force crime registrar

force crime bureau a centralised facility, generally at a police force’s

headquarters, which receives crime reports
directly from the public and makes a record of the
crime immediately, providing the victim with a
crime reference number

force crime registrar the person in a police force who is responsible for
ensuring compliance with crime-recording rules.
The HOCR provide that he is ultimately
responsible for all decisions to record a crime or
to make a no-crime decision, as the final arbiter.
The force crime registrar’s responsibilities include
training staff in the crime-recording process and

7
 carrying out audits to check that the force is
complying with all applicable rules

he/him/his/she/her the use of the masculine gender includes the

feminine, and vice versa, unless the context
otherwise requires

HOCR Home Office Counting Rules

Home Office Counting rules in accordance with which crime data –

Rules required to be submitted to the Home Secretary
under sections 44 and 45 of the Police Act 1996 –
must be collected. They set down how the police
service in England and Wales must record crime,
how crimes must be classified according to crime
type and categories, whether and when to record
crime, how many crimes to record in respect of a
single incident and the regime for the re-
classification of crimes as no-crimes. The HOCR
specify all crime categories for each crime type
including the main ones of homicide, violence,
sexual offences, robbery, burglary, vehicle
offences, theft, arson and criminal damage, drug
offences, possession of weapons, public order
offences, miscellaneous crimes against society,
and fraud; the NCRS is part of the HOCR

Home Office Statistics Unit unit of the Home Office responsible for managing
Home Office statistics

HOSU Home Office Statistics Unit

incident reports reports of events received by the police that

require police attention. Whether or not an
incident report becomes a crime record is
determined on the balance of probability that a
notifiable offence has occurred as set out in the
Home Office Counting Rules. If an incident does
not turn out to be a crime, it must still be logged
on the force’s incident-recording system

Independent Safeguarding a public body established in 2006 under the

Authority Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to

8
 oversee a vetting and barring scheme in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland, which requires all
those working with vulnerable groups to undergo
an enhanced vetting procedure before being
allowed to commence any relevant duties. The
ISA existed until 1 December 2012, when it
merged with the Criminal Records Bureau to form
the Disclosure and Barring Service

National Crime Recording a standard of crime-recording introduced in 2002

Standard and published as part of the Home Office
Counting Rules; it has the twin objectives of
ensuring the police focus more on victims of crime
and ensuring consistency in crime-recording in all
police forces

National Crime Recording a group of institutions and office-holders which

Steering Group meets regularly to review the HOCR and make
recommendations for change; its members
include the Home Office Statistics Unit, force
crime registrars and representatives of ACPO,
HMIC and the ONS; its recommendations for
change are considered by the Home Secretary
and CSAC; the HOCR are updated with approved
changes each April; updates include changes
which reflect changes in legislation and case law,
and adjustments to improve clarity and
consistency in recording by police forces

national policing lead senior police officer with responsibility in England

and Wales for leading the development of a
particular area of policing

NCRS National Crime Recording Standard

NCRSG National Crime Recording Steering Group

no-crime an incident which was initially recorded as a crime

and has subsequently been established not to
have been a crime on the basis of additional
verifiable information; no-criming is the act of
removing a crime classification for this reason

ONS Office for National Statistics

9
Office for National Statistics the UK’s largest independent producer of official
statistics and the recognised national statistical
institute for the UK; it is the executive body of the
UK Statistics Authority, established by the
Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007

opening and closing codes codes or descriptions for recorded incidents

reported to the police. An opening code is used
so that the police can easily see the nature of the
incident. A closing code may be the same as an
opening code but if, once the police have
attended the incident, the information changes,
then the closing code will describe what the
incident actually was

out-of-court disposal one of several methods of concluding the action

of the criminal justice system in respect of a crime
without proceeding to a prosecution; they are
administered and effected by the police, and
enable them to deal quickly and proportionately
with low-level, often first-time offences; they
include cautions, cannabis warnings, penalty
notices for disorder, and community resolutions;
some have a statutory basis, and some do not;
they are explained more fully in paragraphs 3.53–
3.55 of this report

PASC Public Administration Select Committee

Penalty Notice for Disorder a form of immediate financial punishment used by

police to deal with low-level offending, such as
being drunk and disorderly, retail theft and minor
criminal damage

PND Penalty Notice for Disorder

police community support a uniformed non-warranted officer employed by a

officer territorial police force or the British Transport
Police in England and Wales; established by the
Police Reform Act 2002

police officer an individual with warranted powers of arrest,

search and detention who, under the direction of

10
 his chief constable, is deployed to uphold the law,
protect life and property, maintain and restore the
Queen’s peace, and pursue and bring offenders
to justice
Protecting Vulnerable a specialist unit in a police force responsible for
People Unit incidents and crimes involving vulnerable people,
including children, mentally ill and infirm people;
these units may also have responsibilities for
dealing with victims of sexual offences, including
rape, where the force does not have a dedicated
rape investigation unit
Public Administration Select a select committee of the House of Commons
Committee which considers matters relating to the quality and
standards of administration within the civil service
Public Protection Unit a specialist unit in a police force which deals with
the protection of vulnerable people (see also
Protecting Vulnerable People Unit)
UKSA United Kingdom Statistics Authority
UK Statistics Authority an independent body established under the
Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007,
operating at arm’s length from government and
which has the objective of promoting and
safeguarding the production and publication of
official statistics that serve the public good; the
Authority’s main functions are the monitoring of
the production and publication of official statistics,
the provision of independent scrutiny of all official
statistics produced in the UK, and the oversight of
the ONS, which is its executive body
Victim Support an independent charity supporting victims and
witnesses of crime committed in England and
Wales; it was set up almost 40 years ago and has
grown to become the oldest and largest victims’
organisation in the world; Victim Support offers
assistance to more than a million victims of crime
each year and works closely with the police and
other institutions and entities in the criminal
justice system.

11
1. Summary

1.1 In its 2013/14 inspection programme, approved by the Home Secretary

under section 54 of the Police Act 1996, HMIC is committed to carry out
an inspection into the way the 43 police forces in England and Wales
record crime data. This inspection, carried out between February and
August 2014, is the most extensive of its kind that HMIC has ever
undertaken into crime data integrity.

1.2 This is an interim report of that inspection. It explains the purposes and
methods of the inspection and the criteria that govern crime-recording
practice in the police. So far, we have completed the inspection of
13 forces. As two of the largest metropolitan forces (the Metropolitan
Police and Greater Manchester Police) have been inspected, the
inspection has already covered approximately 60 percent of the reviews
to be done. Whilst the inspection has yet to be completed in the
remaining 30 forces, we can report on a number of emerging themes.

1.3 The inspection provides for the auditing of a sample of reports of crime to
check whether or not they have been correctly recorded as crimes. By
listening to around 8,000 telephone calls which resulted in the creation of
incident reports, we will be able to produce a nationally representative
sample of approximately 5,500 reported crimes. From these data, our
final report in October 2014 will include an assessment of the accuracy of
crime-recording in England and Wales. (Annex C sets out the statistical
method in more detail.)

1.4 Sampling data from each force is being used only as indicative of the
accuracy of force crime-recording; it is not of a size to be of statistical
significance in any one or group of forces other than all 43. To have
taken statistically significant samples of crime-recording data from every
force would have necessitated an inspection so large as to be
impractical, untimely and unaffordable. Each force sample does,
however, contribute to the overall national sample from which we will be
able to report a statistically robust figure for the accuracy of crime-
recording within England and Wales as a whole.

1.5 Good quality crime-recording is materially reliant upon sound

management. Our experience shows that the proper management of
crime-recording critically depends on three interlocking factors:
leadership and governance, systems and processes, and the knowledge
and skills of the people involved. Our inspection tests these areas.

12
1.6 Police force crime data are reported to the Home Office and published by
the Office for National Statistics with other independent data from the
Crime Survey of England and Wales to provide as clear as possible a
picture of the levels of crime. For 20 years, these national data have
shown what amounts to dramatic reductions in crime, during a time when
the rules and standards governing crime-recording practice have been
tightened significantly. 1

1.7 These statistics are evidence of a general downward trend in crime,

which is of course very welcome, but there remains appreciable public
concern that real crime levels are not truly represented in the statistics,
particularly those recorded by police forces. 2 A factor in public concern,
and a probable cause for scepticism about national crime figures, is the
culture in the police – as in other major government organisations – of
pursuing targets and being under pressure to demonstrate good
performance. One of the concerns of this inspection is to find any
instances where crimes are not recorded or are classified inappropriately.
It is essential that crime recording is done honestly and within the rules.
Police officers need to understand and properly apply the rules, and
appropriate mechanisms must be in place to ensure due compliance, so
that the users of crime statistics can rely upon them with confidence.

1.8 Previous and recent HMIC inspections into crime and incident recording
practices – inspections which did not have as broad a scope as this one 3
– have shown crime was under-recorded to varying extents in a sample
of police forces. These inspections also revealed a lack of accuracy in
crime-recording practice in areas such as rape and other sexual violence,
which is of particular public concern.

1.9 The purpose of the current inspection 4 is to provide the answer to the
question:

“To what extent can police-recorded crime information be trusted?”

1
The introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in 2002 and its place in the Home
Office Counting Rules are detailed in the section ‘How do the police record crime’, on page 28
of this report.
2
See page 21 of this report, particularly in relation to the issues raised by the Public
Administration Select Committee in April 2014.
3
See ‘Previous HMIC inspections’ on page 24 of this report.
4
The HMIC 2013/14 inspection programme (available at www.hmic.gov.uk) provides the basis
for this inspection.

13
1.10 To achieve this, the integrity of crime data in each force is being
examined and assessed in terms of leadership and governance, systems
and processes, and the people and skills involved. The scope of the
inspection is necessarily broad. HMIC is examining how each force
applies the standards and rules for crime-recording laid down by the
Home Office; how police culture and behaviours affect recording; how
victims of crime are being served by police crime-recording practices;
and how the police use out-of-court disposals when dealing with
offenders, such as cautions, cannabis warnings, community resolutions
and penalty notices for disorder.

1.11 This inspection considers particularly closely allegations of rape and

other sexual offences and how these are recorded. We also examine
how the police are recording crimes that cause general harm in the
community, such as criminal damage and other crimes related to anti-
social behaviour.

1.12 The inspection also looks closely at the sometimes complex issue of no-
criming, which is when police reclassify a recorded crime as a no-crime.
This is supposed to happen when the police have additional information
which they can verify showing that in reality no crime was committed.

1.13 This inspection was designed with the benefit of advice and assistance
from several authoritative sources. They include the national crime
registrar, the national policing lead on crime statistics and the Crime
Statistics Advisory Committee. The inspection is being conducted by
means of a national audit of crime records and force inspection visits.
This enables us to build substantial evidence at a national level to
establish what are the strengths in crime-recording practice, and to
reveal areas of weakness.

1.14 In this report, we explain the rules and standards that govern crime-
recording practice, why the National Crime Recording Standard was
introduced in 2002, and what this standard aims to achieve (see
paragraphs 3.20–3.26). On the issue of the police duty to record crime,
we describe the principles behind such decisions, including whether or
not to record an incident as a crime and when to reclassify a recorded
crime as a no-crime. We then explain our methodology and provide an
update on the progress of the inspection, as well as present our
emerging findings.

1.15 We are grateful to all police forces in England and Wales for their time
and support in the inspection process.

14
Emerging themes
1.16 The HOCR were established in their current form in 1998 and the NCRS
was implemented in 2002. Together they provide a clear and simple
framework and set of rules for the sound and consistent recording of
crime by the police. They are not especially complicated; nor are they
optional. Every police officer should be able to understand and properly
apply them. Every police force should adhere to them.

1.17 This inspection is concerned with how the HOCR and NCRS are applied.
It is an inspection of the integrity of police-recorded crime data. It is not
an inspection or inquiry into the integrity of the police.

1.18 As explained, this is an interim report. So far, 13 forces of the 43 Home

Office forces have been inspected, but since two of the largest – the
Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police – are among them,
the number of incidents and crimes examined is over 60 per cent of the
total which will have been done by the end of the inspection. It is
therefore timely that we report now on what we have found.

1.19 Before doing so, it is appropriate to remind readers that the only
statistically significant figures in this inspection are those which will be
published in our final report in October 2014. However, we can – and do
– report on the cases which we have examined.

1.20 We are seriously concerned at the picture which is emerging. It is one of

weak or absent management and supervision of crime-recording,
significant under-recording of crime, and serious sexual offences not
being recorded (14 rapes). Some offenders have been issued with out-of-
court disposals when their offending history could not justify it, and in
some cases they should have been prosecuted.

1.21 If the findings for the first set of forces are representative across all
forces and all crime types, this implies that 20 percent of crimes may be
going unrecorded. Some forces have of course performed better than
others. The figures for the forces inspected so far are given in the table at
paragraph 6.19.

1.22 The reasons for these failures will sometimes be a combination of

factors, and sometimes one or two. In some cases, it is simply poor
knowledge of the rules and inadequate or absent training in their content
and application. In others, poor supervision or management of police
officers will be responsible. Pressure of workload, where police officers
have been managed in such a way as to overload them with cases, is
also a likely factor.

15
1.23 An inspection of this nature is not a criminal investigation 5. We cannot
establish in every case what were the motives – if any – of a police
officer who has wrongly failed to record a crime. However, in the light of
what we have so far found – which could conceptually be contradicted by
later results – it is difficult to conclude that none of these failures was the
result of discreditable or unethical behaviour. The failure rate is too high.
What is not possible is any measurement of this factor; that is beyond the
scope of this work.

1.24 The consequences of under-recording of crime are serious and may be

severe:

(a) victims are failed because the crimes against them are not
investigated, they have no hope of justice according to law, and they
will not receive the services to which they are entitled and which they
need;
(b) the community is failed because our system of public justice requires
offenders to face the law and its sanctions, and if they escape justice
not only is it denied, but more victims may be created, increasing the
harm done to the community and its safety and security;
(c) the levels of crime will be wrongly under-stated, and so detection
rates may as a consequence be artificially high, presenting a
misleading picture of crime and disorder to the community, police
and crime commissioners and senior police management;
(d) police chiefs will lack the reliable information which they need to
make sound decisions on the deployment of their resources in order
to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of their assets; this in
turn jeopardises public safety and security.
1.25 The picture is of course not all bad. Later in this report (see section 6),
we explain strengths in the system of police-recorded crime as we have
observed it. We then proceed to describe and evaluate the weaknesses
we have found.

1.26 Further work in the remaining forces will enable us to provide a fuller
picture of crime data integrity in our final report for this inspection, to be
published in October 2014.

5
If HMIC were to find evidence of any criminal activity, we would provide it to the professional
standards department of the police force in question or the Independent Police Complaints
Commission, as appropriate.

16
2. Introduction

2.1 The duty of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is to inspect and

report on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and
Wales. 6

2.2 This is the interim report of an HMIC inspection into the accuracy and
integrity of crime-recording in all 43 Home Office-funded police forces in
England and Wales.

2.3 This inspection provides for the audit of a sample of reports of crime to
check whether they are correctly recorded as a crime. Taken together,
the samples from each force are designed to produce a nationally
representative sample of 5,500 reported crimes. From these data, our
final report in October 2014 will include an assessment of the accuracy of
crime-recording by the police in England and Wales. (Annex C sets out
the statistical method in more detail.)

2.4 Good quality crime-recording is materially reliant upon sound

management. Our experience shows that the proper management of
crime-recording critically depends on three interlocking factors:
leadership and governance; systems and processes; and the knowledge
and skills of the people involved. Our inspection tests these areas.

2.5 In this report, we explain the standards and rules that are laid down by
the Home Office which apply to crime-recording by the police service. We
also describe emerging themes but do not present conclusive findings at
this stage.

2.6 Our in-force audit and inspection work started in February 2014. We
have so far completed our inspections in 13 of the 43 Home Office police
forces. By August 2014, we will have completed sample checks of
incident and crime records and extensive fieldwork visits in all 43 forces.
In October 2014, we will publish our full report and recommendations.

2.7 This is the most thorough inspection into crime-recording integrity that
HMIC has carried out to date. In this report, we explain: why such a
review is needed to protect the public and serve the victims of crime; how
we carry out the inspection; and what are the main rules and standards

6
Section 54(2), Police Act 1996.

17
 that govern police-recorded crime. We provide examples to illustrate
some of the important characteristics of crime-recording as a day-to-day
policing function and as a highly-regulated process that is influenced by
different systems and procedures.

2.8 We are grateful to all police officers and staff who have provided or are
providing time, assistance and co-operation to facilitate our inspections.
Each force inspection makes a material contribution to the assembly of a
full and clear picture. It is the means of building a substantial and valid
base of evidence about the accuracy of crime-recording across England
and Wales. This evidence is measured against standards laid down by
the Home Office for crime-recording and is gathered by HMIC to fulfil
particular aims, which we explain in the next section.

2.9 Our inspectors are producing individual force reports with our inspection
findings and recommendations where appropriate. These reports are
intended to underpin and, where necessary, assist each force in the
discharge of its duty to record crime accurately and consistently.

2.10 The force reports will describe the audit findings for the force, as well as
our findings in respect of the effectiveness of the leadership and
governance of the force and the systems and processes that are in place
to secure accurate crime-recording. We will also provide our findings
about the level of knowledge and skills of the people involved. The first
group of force reports are presently scheduled to be published in June
2014. They will also form the basis of our full report in October 2014.

Terms of reference
2.11 HMIC’s 2013/14 inspection programme, approved by the Home
Secretary under section 54 of the Police Act 1996, provides for HMIC to
carry out inspections in all Home Office police forces to answer the
question:

“To what extent can police-recorded crime information be trusted?”

Scope
2.12 The inspection has been designed to assess:

• how well each force applies the standards for crime-recording laid
down by the Home Office and known as the Home Office Counting
Rules;

• the culture and behaviours surrounding crime-recording, and the

service the police provide to victims;

18
 • the accuracy of police recording of reported crimes which cause
significant harm, such as crimes of violence, sexual offences,
robbery, burglary, criminal damage and other crimes relating to anti-
social behaviour;

• police decisions about out-of-court disposals, such as police

cautions, penalty notices for disorder, cannabis warnings and
community resolutions; and

• police decisions to no-crime (not to count as a crime) a report of an

incident that has already been recorded as a crime.

Aims
2.13 The objective of the inspection is to provide to the public, police and
crime commissioners and chief constables information, assessments and
recommendations which, if implemented, will be used to improve the
ways in which the police record crimes, leading to increased public trust
in those data.

2.14 HMIC’s inspection sets out to establish:

• how confident the public can be in the accuracy of police-recorded

crime data;

• how effective police leaders are in their oversight and assurance of

crime data integrity in each force;

• how well victims are served by the police when crime-recording

decisions are made;

• whether the results of out-of-court disposals are the right ones for
victims, offenders and the wider public, and are in accordance with
national guidelines; and

• whether decisions to change a recorded crime into a non-crime

(commonly called a no-crime) keep to the relevant rules.

2.15 The full terms of reference for the inspection are contained in Annex A.

19
Why accurate crime-recording matters
2.16 In the 12 months to December 2013, over 3.7 million crimes 7 were
recorded by police forces in England and Wales. HMIC understands that
reporting rates vary for different types of crime and that forces can only
record what is reported to them, although of course they should work
actively to encourage the reporting of crime. By recording crime data
accurately, victims of crime can be looked after and attended to properly.
Crime problems in local force areas can be identified so the police’s
efficiency and effectiveness are strengthened, and police performance
can be properly understood and accordingly the police can be held
properly to account both locally and nationally.

• Help which is available to victims of crime is dependent upon

accurate crime records. For example, when a crime is recorded,
the victim is entitled to a minimum level of service as set out in the
Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. In some cases, a clear and
correct record of the crime also means that victims have support from
other organisations such as the national charity, Victim Support. 8 The
statutory provisions by virtue of which victims are granted rights to
the services of Victim Support only extend to cases where a crime
has been recorded properly under the National Crime Recording
Standard (explained in section 3). 9

• Accurate crime records provide vital information. Police forces

use the data in crime records to analyse the numbers, types and
locations of crimes in their areas. While the overall picture of crime is
more complex, the actual recorded crime data contribute to an
understanding of the risk, threat and harm that the public face. This
helps the police make decisions about where to send police
resources to counter crime effectively and to protect the public.

• Police-recorded crime data are widely accessed and used. Crime

data are made available on a street-by-street basis on

7
Recorded crime rates for police forces in England and Wales, including the British Transport
Police, as reported by the Office for National Statistics for the 12-month period from 1 January
2013 to 31 December 2013.
8
Victim Support provides free and confidential help to victims of crime, witnesses, their families,
friends and anyone else affected by crime across England and Wales
(www.victimsupport.org.uk).
9
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.

20
 www.police.uk 10 so that members of the public can establish the
levels of crime in their own neighbourhoods. Records of crime are
also widely used by third parties; for example, Victim Support, local
authorities and health authorities use police-recorded crime data to
allocate resources. Incorrect data can therefore adversely affect the
way third parties target their support, potentially reducing the
availability of help for victims.
• Crime data are regularly published. This makes it possible for the
public and their elected representatives 11 to hold their forces to
account for their performance in preventing and tackling crime. This
can only be effective if the data are accurate.

Public trust in crime data

2.17 There is significant local and national interest in crime levels and the
accuracy of police-recorded crime data. When there are doubts about the
integrity of crime data recorded by the police, this can have an adverse
effect on the public’s trust and confidence in the police service.

2.18 Doubts have been intensified recently in several ways. Recent HMIC
inspections, which we describe below, have identified distinct
weaknesses in crime-recording processes. In January 2014, due to
concerns about the accuracy of the data, the UK Statistics Authority
removed the designation of police-recorded crime as a National Statistic
under section 12 of the Statistics and Registration Act 2007, and set
specific conditions for returning this data to its former place. 12 The
Authority said that there is accumulating evidence that suggests the
underlying data on crimes recorded by the police may not be reliable.

2.19 In April 2014, the House of Commons Public Administration Select

Committee published a report 13 of its own investigation into police-

10
Crime data are published at street level (www.police.uk), police-force-area level
(www.hmic.gov.uk) and national level (www.ons.gov.uk).
11
Police and crime commissioners for police areas outside London; the Mayor’s Office for
Policing and Crime for the Metropolitan Police Service; and the City of London Corporation for
the City of London Police.
12
See the section on ‘Assembling crime data statistics’ on page 28 of this report.
13
House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC), Caught red-handed:
Why we can’t count on Police Recorded Crime statistics, Thirteenth Report of Session 2013–14,
HC 760, 9 April 2014

21
 recorded crime data. PASC identified under-recording of crime by police
forces as an issue of serious public concern, and made particular
reference to the detrimental effects of performance targets on police
crime-recording practices.

2.20 The report criticised the use of targets based upon police-recorded crime
data and stated that this tended to distort recording practices and created
perverse incentives to misrecord crime. It said that the evidence for this
is incontrovertible.

2.21 The report made twelve specific recommendations for the UKSA, Home
Office, ONS, College of Policing, HMIC and the Committee of Standards
in Public Life, to improve the quality of police-recorded crime data.

2.22 Those recommendations include the following:

• the Home Office should undertake a comprehensive analysis of no-

crime rates for sexual offences across all police forces within two
months of the PASC report;

• the Home Office and the College of Policing should make an explicit
statement of how the Code of Ethics’ enforcement will impose a duty
of data integrity on police officers in respect of crime recording
practices, and that penalties will apply in the event of deliberate non-
compliance;

• officers must be familiar with the victim-focused principles of the

NCRS and the distinction between recording standards and charging
standards;

• senior police leaders and HMIC must ensure that emphasis is placed
on data integrity and accuracy, not on the direction of recorded crime
trends;

• formal performance appraisals should be based upon data integrity

and accuracy and not on targets derived from police-recorded crime
data or other administrative data on their own;

• HMIC should confirm that a rigorous external audit of crime recording

integrity will form a permanent part of its annual audit of forces, and
the current audit of data integrity by HMIC should examine the
reasons for misrecording crime;

• the force crime registrar should be suitably trained and have the
necessary authority, HMIC should identify a minimum rank for the

22
 role, and the force crime registrar should report directly to the force
commander;

• HMIC should examine the effect of PCCs’ target-setting on crime

recording practices and culture; and

• the Home Office should make it clear in its guidance to PCCs that
they should not set performance targets based on police-recorded
crime data.

2.23 PASC concluded that police-recorded crime data should not be used as
the basis for personal performance appraisals, or decisions about
remuneration or promotion. PASC regarded such a practice as a flawed
leadership model, contrary to the policing Code of Ethics.

2.24 The findings in the PASC report are not entirely consistent with our
findings to date; however, HMIC will take into consideration its
recommendations as part of this inspection. The HMIC response to the
PASC report will be included in the response provided by the Home
Office.

2.25 The police’s duty to the victims of crime may be neglected or stand
undischarged when a crime is improperly recorded, leading to a lack of
investigation or poor quality service. As we emphasise in this report, this
inspection has placed victims of crime, and how they are served by the
police, at its heart.

2.26 There are therefore clear links between accurate crime data, police
effectiveness, and public confidence in policing.

2.27 At this stage of the inspection, we can already provide some indications
of both positive and negative aspects of crime data integrity, as set out in
section 6 of this report: ‘Emerging themes’. The full picture will be
reported in the final report in October 2014. This will contain our definitive
conclusions on the strengths and weaknesses of the operation of the
existing system, and will make recommendations for improvements. Until
all 43 forces have been inspected in this respect, it would be premature
for HMIC to come to final conclusions or make recommendations.

23
Previous HMIC inspections
2.28 In October 2009, we published our first report on crime data integrity,
Crime Counts – A review of data quality for offences of the most serious
violence. 14 This was followed in January 2012 by our publication, The
Crime Scene – A review of police crime and incident reports. 15

2.29 The first report focused on data recorded on serious violence; the second
was much wider in scope. Both reports examined how effective forces
were in ensuring that incident records, which included details of
recordable crimes, resulted in correct crime data recording.

2.30 The Crime Scene considered the quality of crime and incident data, and
the arrangements in place to ensure they are recorded and managed
correctly (i.e. in a way that complies with HOCR). The inspection focused
on whether crimes were correctly recorded from incident records, and the
standards used to close a reported incident.

2.31 The samples used in The Crime Scene inspection were, on their own, too
small to provide a definitive assessment of the accuracy of crime-
recording nationally. At force level, however, we found that the
arrangements most forces had in place were sufficient to make correct
crime-recording decisions from reports of incidents, given the information
available within an incident record. It established that there were
variations in crime-recording practices which could have a corresponding
detrimental effect on the accuracy of published crime statistics.

Crime-recording in Kent in 2013

2.32 In February 2013, the police and crime commissioner for Kent
commissioned HMIC to conduct an inspection to determine whether the
people of Kent could have confidence in the force’s crime figures. In June
2013, HMIC published Crime-recording in Kent – A report commissioned
by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Kent . 16

14
Crime Counts: A review of data quality for offences of the most serious violence, HMIC,
London, 2009. Available from www.hmic.gov.uk
15
The Crime Scene – A review of police crime and incident reports, HMIC, London, January
2012. Available from www.hmic.gov.uk
16
Crime Recording in Kent – A report commissioned by the Police and Crime Commissioner for
Kent, HMIC, London, June 2013. Available from www.hmic.gov.uk

24
2.33 This inspection found that appreciably more needed to be done before
the people of Kent could be confident that the crime figures published by
the force were as accurate as they should be. HMIC found that the force
had under-recorded approximately one in every ten crimes (+ / - 5
percent), and that it did not interpret the HOCR correctly. This meant
crime was not correctly recorded. We explain the central role of the
HOCR and NCRS later in this report. 17

2.34 It is important to note that the findings for Kent cannot be extrapolated to
make judgments about the accuracy of crime-recording in other forces.

2.35 The 2013 report found that Kent Police had made improvements to the
way in which it dealt with the declassification of recorded crimes (no-
criming) since 2012, and had reduced the total number of occasions
where this occurred. However, we found that the decision to no-crime
was still incorrect in more than 25 percent of the cases we reviewed. It
was of particular concern – and unacceptable – that this inaccuracy was
evident in serious crimes such as rape, robbery and violence.

2.36 In January 2014, HMIC published an interim progress report reviewing

the improvements that had been made by Kent Police since publication
of the 2013 report. 18 Kent Police was found to have responded positively
to the concerns raised in HMIC’s 2013 report. The force had developed a
comprehensive action plan, against which good progress had been
made, and there was substantially greater accuracy in crime-recording,
including in no-crime decisions.

2.37 It is important to note that the sample for the Kent inspection was of a
sufficient size that we could form statistically reliable judgments. We are
not able to replicate this sample size for each of the 43 forces, due to the
resourcing this would require. The statistics in this current audit are only
statistically reliable at a national level.

2.38 Kent Police will be visited again as part of this 43-force inspection to
assess whether the people of Kent can have a lasting confidence in the
force’s crime figures.

17
The central role of the Home Office Counting Rules and National Crime Recording Standard
is detailed in the section ‘Crime-recording counting rules and standards’, on page 32 of this
report.
18
Crime Recording in Kent – An interim progress report, commissioned by the Police and Crime
Commissioner for Kent, HMIC, London, January 2014. Available from www.hmic.gov.uk

25
Other considerations
2.39 This inspection is not only a test of national compliance with crime-
recording rules. It also examines police crime-recording culture in all 43
forces. Fundamentally, this is a test of the way victims of crime are
served by the police in England and Wales, focusing more on accurate
crime-recording, i.e. recording a crime when a crime has been
committed, rather than the broader assessment of whether incident
reports have been correctly completed, as was considered in The Crime
Scene 2012.

2.40 As we explain in the main body of this report, our task has required a
consistently applied and methodical approach to produce a valid picture
of crime-recording in England and Wales.

2.41 Our inspectors are particularly aware of the pressure placed on police to
prevent, tackle and try to reduce crime, and to demonstrate they are
doing so. Over approximately three decades, and in common with other
major public organisations, the police have been subject to a
performance and target-driven culture which stems from the policies of
successive governments. HMIC was itself an instrument in a
government-led programme to secure improvements in police
performance and was, in those times, a strong promoter of the target
culture within the police service. This culture led to successes in
performance terms but also had detrimental effects. In 2010, the Home
Secretary made a clear statement to the police service that she was
removing nationally-established targets to reduce particular types of
crime, and told police forces:

“I couldn’t be any clearer about your mission: it isn’t a thirty-point

plan; it is to cut crime. No more, and no less”. 19

2.42 Much of our review of crime records is an assessment of accurate crime

classification according to the rules and standards, including the under-
recording of crime that should be logged from incident records.

2.43 We take note of any instances where we find that performance pressures
appear to affect the accuracy of crime-recording. We will note, for

19
Speech by the Home Secretary to the Association of Chief Police Officers and the
Association of Police Authorities national conference, 29 June 2010, Manchester.

26
 example, wherever we identify crimes that may not have been accurately
recorded because of pressures to downgrade a crime to a less serious
classification, or to reclassify a recorded crime as a no-crime to present a
better picture of a force’s performance; or indeed not to record a crime at
all.

2.44 It should be understood that police forces can only record what is
reported to them by victims and by police officers carrying out their
duties. Reporting rates vary for each crime type. There are hidden and
under-reported crime types, including domestic violence, sexual offences
and child abuse. New types of crime are currently emerging and placing
added pressure on police crime-fighting resources. They include, for
example, people-trafficking and modern-day slavery, and the evolving
threat from cybercrime. 20

2.45 The focus of this inspection is on the crimes that are reported and should
be recorded, how this is done and the culture that surrounds crime-
recording practice.

20
The police response to these crimes will be inspected as part of the HMIC 2014/15 inspection
programme.

27
3. How do the police record crime?

3.1 This section explains how crime statistics are assembled, how police
forces record crime data and the rules that govern the process. We
provide case examples and other illustrations to set the scene as clearly
as possible.

3.2 We describe:

• the roles of the Home Office and government statistical bodies

governing crime data recording in England and Wales;

• the Home Office Counting Rules for recorded crime and the National
Crime Recording Standard: rules to ensure consistent and effective
crime-recording and that take a more victim-focused approach to
crime-recording;

• how the rules are interpreted: when and what is a crime and how
police receive reports of crime; and

• the use of out-of-court disposals.

3.3 These elements are the context for understanding the complexities of
crime data recording and show that there is room for error even when
police force crime-recording is internally monitored and strictly controlled.
This background also underpins the requirement for applying rigour and
consistency in our inspection approach, described in the next part of this
report.

Assembling crime data statistics

3.4 The Home Secretary requires chief constables in England and Wales to
provide statistical data, and specifies the form in which they must provide
these data. 21

3.5 The Home Office collates crime statistics based on data returns
submitted by police forces. It then carries out extensive checks for
anomalies before supplying the data for publication by the Office for
National Statistics. While the ONS will also look for obvious anomalies in

21
These powers are contained in section 44, Police Act 1996.

28
 the data, it accepts the data as given and they are published quarterly on
behalf of the ONS’s Chief Statistician.

3.6 In a separate, overseeing role, is the UK Statistics Authority. As an

independent body operating at arm’s length from government, the UK
Statistics Authority’s main objective is to promote and safeguard the
production and publication of official statistics that serve the public good.
The main functions of the Authority are the provision of independent
scrutiny of all official statistics produced in the UK and the oversight of
the Office for National Statistics, which is its executive body.

3.7 In January 2014, the UK Statistics Authority removed police-recorded

crime data from official national statistics records because of their
concerns about its accuracy. The Authority stated it would only restore
this data to its place when:

“…the Office for National Statistics (ONS), working with the Home
Office, HMIC or other appropriate bodies, is able to demonstrate that
the quality of the underlying data, and the robustness of the ongoing
audit and quality assurance procedures, are sufficient to support its
production of statistics based on recorded crime data to a level of
quality that meets users’ needs.” 22

3.8 In 2012, the independent Crime Statistics Advisory Committee was

established following a recommendation from the National Statistician’s
Review of Crime Statistics. 23 CSAC is a high-level advisory body offering
advice to the Home Secretary, the ONS and HMIC on matters relating to
the measurement of crime and the collection and presentation of crime
data for England and Wales.

3.9 Alongside statistics compiled from police-recorded data, the ONS

completes a separate statistical report, the Crime Survey of England and
Wales. The CSEW measures the extent of crime by asking people
whether they have, in the past year, had experience of crime, such as
burglary and assaults, crimes against society such as drug offences and
public order matters, and other non-notifiable crimes including those
dealt with by other agencies. The survey is a valuable source of

22
Assessment Report 268: Statistics on Crime in England and Wales, UK Statistics Authority,
London, January 2014. Available from www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk
23
National Statistician’s Review of Crime Statistics: England and Wales, UK Statistics Authority,
London, June 2011. Available from www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk

29
 information. It has measured the extent and nature of crime in England
and Wales in this way since 1982.

3.10 The CSEW includes both crimes reported to the police and those that go
unreported, and is therefore used alongside the police-recorded crime
figures to show a more complete picture. However, while it is an
extensive survey which is important in estimating unreported crimes, the
CSEW does not provide a complete or perfect count of crime. 24

3.11 CSEW is a face-to-face survey in which people resident in households in

England and Wales are asked about their experiences of crime in the 12
months prior to the interview. 50,000 households are asked to participate
in the survey, with around 70% of households engaging. This equates to
around 35,000 adults and 3,500 children (10-15 years). The box and
graph below show the latest figures for police-recorded and CSEW-
recorded crime. Notably, it reveals a divergence between the overall
levels of police-recorded crime and crime as reported in the CSEW for
comparable crimes.

3.12 Last year, the ONS published a report on this divergence and stated that
there could be a number of reasons for it, one of which was recording
practice in the police service. The ONS’s hypothesis was that the
growing gap between the CSEW and police-recorded crime series could
be due to:

“a gradual erosion of compliance with the NCRS such that a growing

number of crimes reported to the police are not being captured in
crime-recording systems.” 25

3.13 Closer to home, the majority of police and crime commissioners’ police
and crime plans contain commitments to reduce crime. Therefore, the
data to support success of these plans must be trustworthy.

3.14 The emphasis on recording accurate crime data is therefore a major

concern of government. It is the reason for the extent and rigour of this

24
The CSEW excludes fraud and those crimes often termed as victimless (for example,
possession of drugs). As a survey that asks people whether they have experienced
victimisation, homicides cannot be included. The CSEW does not cover the population living in
group residences (for example, care homes or halls of residence) or other institutions, nor does
it cover crime against commercial or public-sector bodies.
25
Analysis of variation in crime trends: A study of trends in ‘comparable crime’ categories
between the Crime Survey of England and Wales and the police recorded crime series between
1981 and 2011/12. Available from www.ons.gov.uk

30
 inspection, which focuses on the way police forces comply with rules and
standards for crime-recording laid down by the Home Office.

Police-recorded crime and the Crime Survey of England and Wales

In the latest available data for the 12 months to the end of December 2013, the
police recorded 3.7 million offences, a decrease of two percent from the
previous year.

Police-recorded crime figures continue to show year-on-year reductions, with

the latest figures showing a 38 percent overall reduction from the 12 months to
the end of March 2003 (the first full year of data since the introduction of the
National Crime Recording Standard).

As long as questions remain about the accuracy of police-recorded crime data,

these reductions will be called into question. However, further estimates for the
level of crime are published through the Crime Survey of England and Wales
(previously known as the British Crime Survey). This is based on face-to-face
interviews conducted on behalf of the ONS. Rather than relying on crime
reported to the police, the survey reports on offences experienced by those
interviewed.

The survey shows a higher overall crime level, with 7.5 million crimes against
households and resident adults in the 12 months to the end of December 2013.
But it has also shown substantial reductions. In particular, the CSEW data
shows a 15 percent crime reduction compared with the previous year and,
notably, this is the lowest estimate since the survey began in 1981. 26

This suggests that, while police crime-recording accuracy needs to be

strengthened, the pattern of crime reduction is substantiated.

26
Statistical Bulletin: Crime in England and Wales, year ending December 2013 (released 24
April 2014). Available from www.ons.gov.uk

31
 The volume of crime as recorded by the CSEW and by the police
4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000
Volume of Crime

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

-
2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/102010/112011/122012/13

Crime Survey for England and Wales Crimes Police Recorded Crime (in comparable categories)

Source: Office for National Statistics.

Crime-recording counting rules and standards

3.15 In this section, we describe the rules and standards that govern crime-
recording practice in the police forces of England and Wales, namely, the
HOCR and the NCRS. We explain the principles that all police forces
must follow to comply with both the HOCR and the NCRS, and illustrate
when and why the police should record crime. We also explain and
illustrate the different routes by which police forces receive reports of
crime.

3.16 The crime data recorded by the police and submitted to the Home Office
under section 44 of the Police Act 1996 must comply with the HOCR. 27
This is known as notifiable crime.

3.17 The HOCR are specific about what amounts to a notifiable crime of a
particular type, including sexual violence, robbery, burglary, theft and
handling of stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage and drug
offences. They also specify whether an incident should be recorded as a
crime, when a crime should be recorded and how many crimes should be

27
Home Office (2012) Home Office Counting Rules. Available from www.gov.uk

32
 recorded in respect of any particular single incident (which may involve
the commission of a number of crimes) and then placed on record to be
notified to the Home Office.

3.18 The counting rules provide a definite framework for interpreting and
classifying crime, and this framework has been tightened up in recent
years. As a means of governing police practice, the counting rules have
evolved over more than 90 years. The general rules for the recording of
crime now extend to 24 pages which are supported by a further 10 pages
of guidance detailing how and when the outcomes of crimes are
recorded, such as when a person is prosecuted or given a Penalty Notice
for Disorder. Annexes covering particular crime types extend to over 400
pages. While this level of guidance is significant, it should be considered
alongside the 1,500 different types of criminal offence which must be
notified to the Home Office.

3.19 The rules standardise how, and if, crimes are recorded. For instance,
they set out different ways of recording crimes when there is a specific or
intended victim, or when the victim is unwilling to be identified. After the
election of the Labour government in 1997, there was an attempt to
tighten and standardise the existing counting rules, but of course, like
any rules, they remain susceptible to interpretation.

3.20 In the light of these concerns, the Home Office commissioned a research
paper into crime-recording practice in ten police forces. It revealed poor
recording and inappropriate practices. 28 Following this study, HMIC was
commissioned to conduct a further review of crime-recording in 11 forces
while taking data from all 43. The report, 29 published in 2000 alongside
the Home Office Research Study, was also highly critical. It found that
the forces inspected had only correctly recorded between 55 and 85
percent of the crimes that should have been recorded.

3.21 Following these reviews, the Association of Chief Police Officers, with the
Home Office, developed the NCRS, which was introduced in 2002.

3.22 While the HOCR are ‘what must be done’ in police crime-recording, the
NCRS is ‘why it must be done’. The NCRS has the twin aims of ensuring
proper focus on the victims of crime and consistency in crime-recording

28
Review of police forces’ crime-recording practices, Home Office Research Study 204, 2000.
29
On the Record, HMIC, July 2000. Available from www.hmic.gov.uk

33
 in all 43 police forces. It is based on applying legal definitions of crime to
victim reports.

Who ensures compliance with the crime-recording rules?

3.23 The NCRS state that each force must appoint a force crime registrar who
is responsible for ensuring compliance with the crime-recording process.
As the final arbiter he is ultimately responsible for all decisions to record
a crime or to make a no-crime decision. The FCR’s responsibilities
include training staff in the crime-recording process and carrying out
audits to check that the force is complying with the rules. 30

3.24 All forces must designate a police officer of chief officer rank who has
responsibility for overseeing the force approach to crime-recording. The
relationship between these two central roles is clear. The NCRS states
that the FCR must be answerable to the chief officer with overall
responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of crime-recording processes.

3.25 At national level, the national crime registrar manages the counting rules
on behalf of the Home Office. He is the source of expertise on the rules
but has no authority to change crime-recording decisions made at force
level.

3.26 Since the introduction of the NCRS, the National Crime Recording
Steering Group has met regularly to review the counting rules. The
steering group includes members of the Home Office Statistics Unit,
FCRs, the national policing lead for crime statistics, HMIC and the ONS.
Recommendations for change are considered by the Home Secretary
and CSAC, and the HOCR are updated each April. Updates include
amendments to reflect changes in legislation and adjustments to improve
clarity and consistency in recording by police forces.

When is an ‘incident’ a crime?

3.27 The first principle the police must follow is that all reports of incidents,
whether from victims, witnesses or third parties and whether crime-
related or not, must result in the registration of an incident report by the
police. It is important to note that an incident report can take any form as
long as it is auditable and accessible. For example, a report made
directly to an officer on the street may be recorded in his pocket book.

30
HOCR Annex A, National Crime Recording Standard, paragraph 4.2.

34
3.28 From the moment a victim of crime calls the police, the requirement to
record a crime is based on the victim’s statement to the police. The
allegations about a crime are recorded on the basis of the victim’s own
account. The correct approach by staff receiving reports of crime is to
ask some initial questions to establish the facts, but they do not conduct
an investigation.

3.29 To determine whether an incident is a crime, the HOCR state that:

“An incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable to the Home

Secretary) for offences against an identified victim if, on the balance
of probability:

A. The circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law

(the police will determine this, based on their knowledge of the law
and counting rules), and

B. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.” 31

3.30 This is followed by rule 2:

“For offences against the state the points to prove to evidence the
offence must clearly be made out, before a crime is recorded.”

3.31 So there are two primary types of crime: the first aimed at identified
victims; the second against the state, for example the possession of
drugs, carrying a weapon, and public order offences that have no victim.

3.32 Because these rules place an obligation on the police to accept what the
victim says unless there is “credible evidence to the contrary”, a crime
should still be recorded where:

• the victim declines to provide personal details;

• the victim does not want to take the matter further; and

• the allegation cannot be proved.

3.33 The balance of probability test is detailed in the NCRS. It provides that:

“In most cases, a belief by the victim (or person reasonably assumed
to be acting on behalf of the victim) that a crime has occurred is
sufficient to justify its recording as a crime, although this will not be

31
HOCR, General Rules Section A.

35
 the case in all circumstances. Effectively, a more victim-orientated
approach is advocated.” 32

“An allegation should be considered as made, at the first point of

contact, i.e. the stage at which the victim or a person reasonably
assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim first makes contact with
the police, be that by phone, etc. or in person. If an alleged or
possible victim cannot be contacted or later refuses to provide further
detail, the Crime Recording Decision Making Process (CRDMP)
should be based on all available first contact information.”

3.34 The HOCR describe when a crime need not be recorded; if a victim does
not confirm a crime, then it is not recorded. For instance, if someone
other than the victim reports an apparent street robbery, but police
cannot find the victim, then a crime is not recorded, but the incident must
be recorded.

3.35 Also, the HOCR do not require a force to record a crime if it happens in
another force area or in another country but is reported in England or
Wales.

32
HOCR, General Rules, Annex A.

36
One or more crimes?
Once the police have decided to record a crime, they then need to determine
how many crimes to record, as well as which offences have been committed.
This is sometimes where the police make errors.

Consider, for example, a burglary where car keys are taken from a house and
the car has been stolen:

• This may involve two offences: a burglary (entering the house and
stealing the keys); and the theft of a motor vehicle.

• If there is only one victim and one offender (or group of offenders
acting together), then only one crime should be recorded, although the
offender(s) may be charged and convicted of both offences.

• If there are two or more victims in the same incident (such as two
people assaulted by a gang), a crime should be recorded in relation to
each victim.

How soon should police record a crime?

3.36 The HOCR state that:

“…a crime should be recorded as soon as the reporting officer is

satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been
committed”.

3.37 The police must record the crime at the earliest opportunity that the
system allows. This is traditionally three 24-hour periods (72 hours) from
the time the incident is first logged. However, a maximum of seven days
is allowed to cater for situations outside the control of the police, such as
where victims cannot be contacted or are not available despite police
efforts to make contact with them.

3.38 It is important that crimes are recorded in a timely way. This is for a
number of reasons. Officers use crime information when responding to
incidents and events to help them assess risks to officers and the public,
and the information is disseminated on the Police National Database
(PND). Police forces use this in the investigation of serious crimes, and
when checking the backgrounds of individuals, so any delays can affect
the quality of the information available.

37
3.39 In the case of reports of sexual violence, the findings from The Crime
Scene, 33 published in 2012, indicated that almost one-fifth of forces did
not report some sexual offences in a timely way. These forces delayed
the classification of such crimes until the primary investigation was
complete and then decided, sometimes weeks later, what classification to
apply in the crime record. This is a clear breach of the HOCR. The
current inspection is revisiting this issue and is in particular looking
closely at how allegations of rape are recorded.

How do forces receive reports of crime?

3.40 Police forces receive reports of crime from the public through a number
of routes. The two main ones are by telephone:

• directly to a force control room, where an incident record is created

and, when it is considered appropriate – sometimes some time later
– a crime record is made;

• directly from a victim of a crime to a call-handler where a crime

record is made immediately and the victim receives a crime
reference number.

3.41 Most other crime is reported to the police through a specialist

department, such as through referrals from other statutory bodies and
charities, or to officers on the street or at the front counters of police
stations.

3.42 Police forces use opening and closing codes to log and classify reported
incidents and to check on the investigation and outcomes of each
reported incident or crime. The number of opening and closing codes
varies in different police forces, depending on each force’s incident
recording systems and processes. But the purpose of these codes – to
identify and record each incident or crime – remains the same.

3.43 Importantly, reports of crime received through the two main routes (as
described in paragraph 3.40) are recorded on force IT systems. This
means there are records that can be checked for accuracy. Checking
(auditing or dip-sampling) is an essential part of both the internal and
external review of police procedures. Forces use a variety of IT systems
for recording incidents and crimes, while specialist departments,
including those investigating rape and other serious sexual offences, and

33
The Crime Scene, HMIC, January 2012.

38
 dealing with the protection of vulnerable people, often have their own
separate IT systems. There are, in fact, numerous different IT systems
used in specialist departments in the 43 police forces. On these, the
police record referrals concerning rape and other crimes from
organisations such as health and social services. There are also
instances where police officers in specialist departments make records
on separate areas of the force’s standard crime-recording system;
however, these are not recorded crimes until they are recorded in the
main crime-recording database.

3.44 The other, non-direct routes for reporting crime (such as those recorded
in minutes of meetings with external organisations, on separate IT
systems in a specialist department, or in officers’ pocket books) are
inherently difficult to audit because they do not automatically result in an
easily auditable record on force IT systems.

3.45 Figure 1 below illustrates the various routes for recording crime and the
process required by the counting rules.

39
 Figure 1: The national crime-recording process

Incident reported to police

(any source)

Incident is dealt Does the incident concern a report

with and closed No of a crime?
as required.
Yes
No
On the balance of probabilities has
a notifiable crime been committed?

Yes

Yes
Is there any evidence to the
contrary?

No

No
Can a victim or representative be
traced?
Yes

Yes

Does victim or representative

No confirm as a crime?

Yes

A crime is not Yes Is another force recording the crime?

recorded but the
incident has to
be classified and No
closed as a
Crime Related
Incident (CRI) Does NCRS/HOCR guidance direct
Yes
that a crime should not be recorded?

No

Record as a crime

Yes Is there any further substantive

Re-classify or information or additional verifiable
no-crime in accordance information (to say a crime did not
with NCRS/HOCR occur)?

No

Remains as a recorded crime

40
When is an incident not a crime?
3.46 Many incidents reported to the police turn out not to be crimes. For
example, someone reports a man on a ladder breaking the first floor
window of a house and climbing in. A police patrol immediately goes to
the house and finds the man who is inside is the owner and had forgotten
his key. When there is such an incident, or when the police have clear
evidence to believe that a crime has not been committed, this is not a
crime and not recorded as such.

3.47 It should be emphasised that the HOCR do not expect police to record
reports of crimes made by a third person (unless that person is
reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) if the victim
cannot be found to verify that a crime has occurred. So, if someone
witnesses an assault in the street and reports it to the police, but the
victim of the assault is unknown to the witness and cannot be traced, the
police are not required to record the incident as a crime. The incident
itself must be recorded but, under this rule, the police are actively
prevented from recording all the crimes that come to their attention.

When does a crime get re-classified to a no-crime?

3.48 There are occasions when it becomes apparent that a recorded crime is
not in fact a crime. In these circumstances, the police reclassify the crime
as a no-crime. This will not therefore be counted in the number of crimes
reported to the Home Secretary.

3.49 The HOCR have criteria that must be met when deciding whether a
recorded crime should be shown as a no-crime. One of the following
criteria must be satisfied to record a no-crime:

(a) the crime is outside the jurisdiction of the police force in which it was
first recorded (e.g. if it happens at a railway station, then it is
transferred to the British Transport Police to make the record);

(b) additional verifiable information is available which determines that no

notifiable crime has been committed; 34

(c) the alleged crime is part of another crime already recorded;

(d) the crime is recorded in error (e.g. a road collision is recorded as

criminal damage); or

34
HOCR, General Rules, Section C, No Crimes (1 of 2).

41
 (e) the recorded crime is one of less serious assault and there is clear
additional verifiable information that shows that the offender acted in
self-defence.

3.50 The main requirement here is the need to show additional verifiable
information – often referred to as AVI – to reclassify a crime as a no-
crime.

3.51 If, for example, an item which is first recorded as stolen is afterwards
found and had been misplaced by the person who reported it as stolen,
then it would be correct to show the crime record as a no-crime.

3.52 However, if following an investigation of a reported rape the police are

unclear as to whether an offence has taken place then the crime record
must remain open. Being unclear does not amount to additional verifiable
information demonstrating that the crime did not take place.

No-criming decisions require close checking

Consider these examples from previous HMIC audits of no-crime records:

A man reports the theft of cash from an upstairs room and it was recorded as a
crime of burglary. There were two points of entry into the room. One was
covered by CCTV, which did not show any offender. The other was through the
back door, where there was a large puddle of water which could have caused
muddy boot prints but there was no sign of them. The victim could not explain
this but still stated that the money had been stolen. The crime was no-crimed on
the assumption that the victim was not telling the truth and that boot prints
would probably have been left, rather than on the basis of additional verifiable
information which would have determined (proved) that a crime was not
committed. This should therefore have remained a recorded crime.

And this example:

A woman alleges rape by a man in a car after she changed her mind about
having sex following a discussion about the use of a condom. The rape was
recorded as a crime. She reports that she did not run away because she was
scared of being beaten up. There had been no violence or pinning down
although the woman said her chest was sore and she had felt intimidated. The
incident was no-crimed in this case because the man said he did not know that
she did not consent to having sex. But there is no additional verifiable
information to show that the victim had in fact given consent. This should have
remained recorded as a crime of rape.

42
What are out-of-court disposals?
3.53 In this inspection, we also look at out-of-court disposals. 35 These allow
the police to deal quickly and proportionately with low-level, often first-
time offences 36 which can be resolved satisfactorily and in the public
interest without going to court.

3.54 They include:

• Caution: This is a non-statutory disposal used for people when the

offender’s behaviour requires no more than a formal warning. A
caution may be offered when the offender admits the offence and
there is enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, but it
is not in the public interest to prosecute. The offender must also
agree to accept the caution, and in doing so must understand the
implications (see paragraph 6.43).

• Adult cannabis warning: This is a non-statutory disposal introduced

in 2004 for people aged 18 and older. It is a formal warning given by
a police officer to deal with an adult caught in possession of a small
amount of cannabis consistent with personal use.

• Penalty notice for disorder (PND): PNDs were established by the

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and are available only for
offenders aged 18 and over. The PND scheme provides police with a
swift punishment to deal with low-level offending. A PND can be
given at a police station, or on the spot, and allows the person
receiving the PND 21 days either to pay a penalty or to choose to go
to court. The penalty is increased if the person fails to do either – and
the amount charged is registered in a magistrate’s court for
enforcement. PNDs are available for certain offences including being
drunk and disorderly in a public place, retail theft under £100
(shoplifting), criminal damage under £300 and behaviour likely to
cause harassment, alarm or distress.

• Community resolution: This is a way of dealing with an offender

which is proportionate to lower-level crime. The resolution is

35
Our inspection of out-of-court disposals does not form part of the national audit figure for
crime-recording compliance. However, as the recording of the disposal (or outcome) of a
recorded crime forms part of the NCRS, we will report on the appropriateness of their use, and
therefore the validity of the data reporting their use, both at force and national level.
36
Quick Reference Guides to Out-of-Court Disposals, Ministry of Justice, April 2013.

43
 dependent on the offence that has been committed; it may include,
for example, simply apologising to the victim or making good damage
caused. Community resolutions can be offered when the offender
admits the offence and are mainly used in cases where the victim
has agreed that he does not want formal action to be taken.

3.55 These disposals – or outcomes of crime – are important to crime

reduction. They are intended to allow the police to deal with often first-
time offenders with a view to discouraging them from committing further
crime. Where they are used, the NCRS requires forces to record the fact
as part of the relevant crime record. This data is then used to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the force in dealing with reported crime.

3.56 This inspection is concerned to establish whether these methods of crime

disposal are being used appropriately by forces and whether, when
deciding to use these disposals, the views of the victim or any threat to
the wider community are being properly considered. For example, police
officers should explain their decision to use an out-of-court disposal to
the victim of the crime.

3.57 The service provided to victims is of central importance. By complying

with the HOCR and NCRS in recording crimes accurately, and by
discussing out-of-court disposals with victims, the police are
demonstrating that their work is focused on the interests of the victims of
crime. Accurate crime-recording at the outset of each incident makes it
possible for the police to involve and work with victims, discuss crime
investigation progress and outcomes, and ensure victims have
information about victim support services.

44
4. The method of inspection

4.1 HMIC has worked with a number of parties to design its methodology for
this inspection. These include the national policing lead for crime
statistics, Chief Constable Jeff Farrar; the Office for National Statistics;
the Police Federation of England and Wales; the Police Superintendents’
Association of England and Wales; the Home Office; the national crime
registrar; and the Crime Statistics Advisory Committee. In addition, HMIC
has consulted a working group of practitioners, including performance
managers and force crime registrars from several forces.

4.2 The inspection not only tests compliance with crime-recording rules but
also assesses the culture and systems surrounding crime-recording, as
well as the service the police provide to victims. The interests of victims
of crime and the effect of crime-recording on the community are at the
heart of this inspection. Inspectors are making sample follow-up calls to
victims to determine the effect the decision to record or not record a
crime has had. The inspection also considers crimes which, when
repeated, cause significant harm to the community, such as criminal
damage and other crimes related to anti-social behaviour. The inspection
is also reviewing crime outcomes, including cautions and community
resolutions, from the viewpoint of a victim.

4.3 We are inspecting the following in each force in relation to crime data
recording:

• leadership and governance;

• systems and processes; and

• people and skills.

The three inspection stages

4.4 The inspection is carried out in three stages:

1. During the first stage, in December 2013, HMIC inspectors made

one-day visits to each of the 43 forces to gain a clear understanding
of the ways in which members of the public report crime to each
force. All forces have call-handling centres receiving incident
information and data; some have specialist crime-recording bureaux.
Force specialist departments also receive some reports of serious
crimes directly from other organisations, such as health or social

45
 services. HMIC has assessed the proportion of crimes reported by
each route.

2. Once HMIC inspectors have identified the various crime-reporting

routes for each force – and where the various force systems allow for
reports to be audited – we ask each force to provide a specific
number of records for auditing purposes. A sample of these records
are then selected by HMIC and audited. We explain the audit
sampling approach in more detail in Annex C.

3. Informed by the audit findings and our understanding of the crime

reporting routes, HMIC inspection teams visit each police force to
interview senior managers and staff directly involved with crime-
recording, visit control rooms and crime-recording centres, and meet
a focus group of practitioners. We also carry out ‘reality testing’ in the
form of unannounced visits to police stations to interview frontline
staff who have day-to-day responsibility – as constables, sergeants
and inspectors – for dealing with incidents and victims of crime. In
this way, we check how top-level decisions and strategies affect the
way crime is recorded at police stations. We explain the field visits in
more detail below.

Additional surveys
4.5 While the auditing and field inspection programme is central to the
inspection approach, we have also commissioned surveys to assist us:

• The first survey, which is being carried out in two parts, is aimed at
the public. 37 It is gauging the trust the public has in police crime data
and establishing the aspects of crime-recording which matter most to
people.

• The second survey, to be completed during the summer of 2014, will

be directed at police officers and police staff across England and
Wales, and will build on our evidence from the field inspections. From
this survey, we will establish: what officers and staff think about
crime-recording; what training they get; what messages they take in
from senior and middle managers about crime-recording integrity;

37
The public survey is being conducted in two parts. The first part, with small groups of people
who are provided with the background detail to crime-recording, was completed during February
2014; the second part, a number of specific questions included within the CSEW, will be
completed between April and June 2014.

46
 and whether they are under any undue pressure to record or not to
record crimes.

The approach to auditing crime records

4.6 The most efficient method of making an assessment of compliance with
the Home Office Counting Rules is to take a representative sample of
records that appear to be crimes. HMIC auditors are checking this
sample of records to understand:

• the proportion of reported crime that is correctly recorded as a crime;

• whether reports of crime correctly recorded as crimes are correctly

classified; and

• the time taken to record a crime from the earliest point at which it
should have been recorded.

4.7 The accuracy of the recording of specific crime types can differ.
Therefore, it should be noted that the degree of under-recording of crime
that is found may not be the same for all crime types. This is explained in
more detail in Annex C.

4.8 The audit will report on crime-recording accuracy at a national level, and
not at force level, as the sample sizes required to report with a
reasonable level of precision (+/- 5%) at force level are beyond available
resources. 38

4.9 Sampling data for each force are only being used as indicative of the
accuracy of force crime-recording; they are not of a size to be of
statistical significance. Each force sample does, however, contribute to
the overall national sample from which we will be able to report a
statistically sound figure for the accuracy of crime-recording within
England and Wales as a whole.

4.10 The audit results for each force are discussed with the force crime
registrar and any differences in opinion on the findings are reviewed by
advisers working with HMIC. The national crime registrar is also taking

38
For example, the CSEW, which is recognised as being the gold standard in terms of survey
collection, does not report at force level, even though its annual sample is as large as 35,000
households.

47
 an active part in this inspection, providing advice when required to the
HMIC auditors, as well as dip-sampling their work to check for accuracy.

The routes for reporting crimes

4.11 The results of the crime route analysis, described in more detail at
paragraph 4.4 of this report, indicated that 92 percent 39 of crime that is
recorded (excluding fraud) came through a route that can be audited. 40
These are crimes reported through police control rooms, directly to
crime-recording bureaux, or both.

4.12 Of the remainder, one percent came through specialist routes, which
included public protection and rape counselling units. The other seven
percent came through a variety of routes, such as reports by a member
of the public to an officer on foot patrol or at the front desk of a police
station. As far as is practical, these other routes are being assessed
through local inspection.

4.13 A full description of our audit methodology is in Annex C.

The field inspection visits

4.14 Audit sampling is only one part of the evidence-gathering process. The
field inspection visits which follow soon after each audit sampling period
are used to complete the picture. Each field inspection visit involves up to
six HMIC inspectors spending three days with each force to gain a
thorough understanding of:

(a) Governance and leadership in crime data integrity by establishing

whether the force has arrangements at senior level to ensure there is
confidence in recorded crime figures and all aspects of HOCR;

(b) Systems and processes in crime data integrity by establishing

whether there are systems and processes in place to ensure that
crime is correctly recorded according to HOCR and NCRS; and if
standards are maintained and no-crime decisions are correct; and

(c) People and skills in crime data integrity by establishing whether the
force has staff whose conduct and skills ensure accurate recording.

39
These figures are for all recorded crime (excluding fraud). In respect of particular crime types,
these figures varied from 86 percent for robbery and sexual offences, to 97 percent for burglary.
40
This does not mean that 92 percent of crime reported to the police comes in via this route; it
is the proportion of crime that gets recorded through this route.

48
4.15 Inspectors complete templates to record evidence gathered by each field
inspection team. The evidence is built up under the direction of an
inspection leader who is responsible for co-ordinating the inspection, as
well as taking part in a range of interviews and facility visits. Interviewees
include the chief officer lead for crime data integrity, the FCR, the head of
crime investigation, the local policing area manager, the head of force IT,
the crime bureau manager, the head of the control room and call-
handling and the head of rape investigations (or the head of the unit
responsible for protecting vulnerable people).

4.16 As well as the individual interviews, inspectors also run a focus group
with officers and staff who have oversight of crime-recording in different
areas of the force.

4.17 Finally, they carry out reality-testing (unannounced visits to police

stations) to see how strategy, vision and operational directions
surrounding crime-recording affect day-to-day practice at the front line.
They also visit the control room and crime bureau (or its equivalent) to
speak to staff who receive calls from the public.

4.18 Inspectors can complete in-depth interviews with 30 or more officers and
staff on each force visit.

Developing a clear picture

4.19 All these methods ensure HMIC can build as accurate as possible a
picture of crime data integrity in England and Wales. They allow us to
find answers to the following questions:

• Is there good leadership in crime data recording? We inspect the

effectiveness of leadership and governance, systems and processes
and the people and skills in place to support accurate crime-
recording.

• How accurately are crimes recorded? We look at the accuracy of

the recording of the types of crimes which cause significant harm to
individuals and the community. We also look closely at out-of-court
disposals and whether these are used appropriately. We review the
standards that forces apply when decisions are made to change a
recorded crime to a no-crime.

• What investment do forces make in crime data integrity? Police

forces vary in the resources they commit to ensure crime data
integrity. Maintaining high standards in crime data requires
investment in systems to support efficient crime-recording, and also

49
 in people. We look at the level of investment in the training of officers
and staff to help them record crime accurately and the investment in
the staff who monitor and audit standards.

• Are victims of crime being well served? At the core of the

inspection we establish whether victims of crime are being served
correctly by the police when it comes to recording crimes. This
means not only checking on the service received by victims who
have had a crime recorded, but making follow-up telephone calls to
some people whose crimes were not recorded to establish whether
they understood the decision.

50
5. The inspection to date

5.1 HMIC has completed all three stages of the inspection explained above
in 13 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. Annex B specifies the
forces we have visited so far. It also shows the schedule of visits to the
remaining 30 forces, to be completed by August 2014.

5.2 The general surveys of the public and of police officers will be assessed
separately and added to the evidence to be used for our final report in
October 2014.

5.3 In support of our findings from the first set of field inspections, we have
reviewed documentation from forces, including policies, procedures and
guidance provided to officers, which set the standard for accurate crime-
recording. We have also reviewed the audits provided to us by the forces
themselves to assess their crime data accuracy. Our one-day visits to all
43 forces in December 2013 provided important information about the
ways in which each force receives reports of crime.

5.4 In relation to the 13 police force inspections carried out so far, our
inspectors have reviewed:

• 3,955 reports of crime; 3,100 of these came from reported incidents,

305 were directly recorded either at the point of report by the victim
over the telephone or through force crime bureaux, and 550 were
recorded by other systems;

• 972 no-crime decisions;

• 978 crime records in which the offender was dealt with by way of an
out-of-court disposal, such as a caution, penalty notice for disorder or
cannabis warning; and

• 308 crime records in which the offender was dealt with by way of a
community resolution.

5.5 The evidence gathered to date from the audit and field inspection visits –
the second and third stages of the inspection approach – enables us to
report on the emerging themes below. Our inspectors are already
identifying some worrying weaknesses in current police crime-recording
practice.

5.6 Our final report in October 2014 will contain statistically sound data
supported by the evidence from all 43 police force inspections.

51
6. Emerging themes

6.1 The HOCR were established in their current form in 1998 and the NCRS
was introduced in 2002. Together they provide a clear and simple
framework and set of rules for the sound and consistent recording of
crime by the police. They are not especially complicated; nor are they
optional. Every police officer should be able to understand and properly
apply them. Every police force must adhere to them.

6.2 This inspection is concerned with how the HOCR and NCRS are applied.
It is an inspection of the integrity of police-recorded crime data. It is not
an inspection or inquiry into the integrity of the police.

6.3 As explained, this is an interim report. This section contains a report of

the themes which are emerging as the inspection continues. So far,
13 forces of the 43 Home Office forces have been inspected, but since
two of the largest – the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester
Police – are among them, the number of incidents and crimes examined
is over 60 per cent of the total which will have been done by the end of
the inspection. It is therefore timely that we report now on what we have
found.

6.4 Before doing so, it is appropriate to remind readers that the only
statistically significant figures in this inspection are those which will be
published in our final report in October 2014. However, we can – and do
– report on the cases which we have examined.

6.5 We are seriously concerned at the picture which is emerging. It is one of

weak or absent management and supervision of crime-recording,
significant under-recording of crime, and serious sexual offences not
being recorded (14 rapes). Some offenders have been issued with out-of-
court disposals when their offending history could not justify it, and in
some cases they should have been prosecuted.

6.6 If the findings for the first set of forces are representative across all
forces and all crime types, this implies that 20 percent of crimes may be
going unrecorded. Some forces have of course performed better than
others. The figures for the forces inspected so far are given in the table at
paragraph 6.19.

6.7 The reasons for these failures will sometimes be a combination of

factors, and sometimes one or two. In some cases, it is simply poor
knowledge of the rules and inadequate or absent training in their content
and application. In others, poor supervision or management of police

52
 officers will be responsible. Pressure of workload, where police officers
have been managed in such a way as to overload them with cases, is
also a likely factor.

6.8 An inspection of this nature is not a criminal investigation 41. We cannot

establish in every case what were the motives – if any – of a police
officer who has wrongly failed to record a crime. However, in the light of
what we have so far found – which could conceptually be contradicted by
later results – it is difficult to conclude that none of these failures was the
result of discreditable or unethical behaviour. The failure rate is too high.
What is not possible is any measurement of this factor; that is beyond the
scope of this work.

6.9 The consequences of under-recording of crime are serious and may be

severe:

(a) victims are failed because the crimes against them are not
investigated, they have no hope of justice according to law, and they
will not receive the services to which they are entitled and which they
need;

(b) the community is failed because our system of public justice requires
offenders to face the law and its sanctions, and if they escape justice
not only is it denied, but more victims may be created, increasing the
harm done to the community and its safety and security;

(c) the levels of crime will be wrongly under-stated, and so detection

rates may as a consequence be artificially high, presenting a
misleading picture of crime and disorder to the community, police
and crime commissioners and senior police management;

(d) police chiefs will lack the reliable information which they need to
make sound decisions on the deployment of their resources in order
to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of their assets; this in
turn jeopardises public safety and security.

6.10 The picture is of course not all bad. In the paragraphs below, we explain
strengths in the system of police-recorded crime as we have observed it.

41
If HMIC were to find evidence of any criminal activity, we would provide it to the professional
standards department of the police force in question or the Independent Police Complaints
Commission, as appropriate.

53
 We then proceed to describe and evaluate the weaknesses we have
found.

6.11 At the end of each field visit by inspectors, senior police officers and staff
in each force receive debriefing on what has been found. This means
that each inspected force is already aware of HMIC’s findings in that
force. It is HMIC’s intention that individual inspection reports – one for
each inspected force – will begin to be published in June 2014.

Strengths
6.12 Two strengths in crime-recording practice stand out from the inspection
of the 13 forces:

1. Classification decisions – We have found little evidence of the

misclassification of crime. Our audits show that of the 2,214 crime
records reviewed, 2,142 42 were classified correctly either at the time
of initial recording or subsequently.

We have found that these classification decisions are best made by a

centralised bureau that is independent of the investigation of the
crime, and where a smaller cohort of dedicated staff have been
trained in crime-recording. However, in times of great pressure on
police budgets, the more expedient and efficient approach is to
ensure that attending officers are competent to make sound crime-
recording decisions themselves. Understanding the crime-recording
regime, including the nature and therefore correct classification of the
crime, should be part of the basic competences of every police
officer.

2. Calling the police – We have found that when victims contact the
police through their call centres on both 999 and 101, they are
provided with a professional service. So far, we have listened to
3,069 telephone calls from the public of which 3,014 were judged by
our inspectors to have been handled well.

42
Our methodology for assessing the correct classifications of recorded crimes means that
auditors only look at the first three crimes in respect of any one incident. This means that if
more than three crimes are reported as having occurred in a single incident, the remaining
crimes are not considered. Therefore, the total of crimes classified (either correctly or
incorrectly) will, in such cases, not match our finding in relation to the total number of crimes
recorded.

54
 Our inspectors are finding that during that important first contact with
police call-handlers, they are usually polite, helpful, demonstrate
empathy for the concerns of the caller and ask meaningful questions
to understand the caller’s concerns. This reflects the finding that staff
within call-handling centres are specialists who receive considerable
training, mentoring and support to be able to do their jobs. It also
clearly illustrates a commendable public-focused approach.

This is an improvement on what we found in our 2012 report on anti-

social behaviour. 43 In that report, we found three forces in which the
standard of call-handling in control rooms was not consistently
acceptable. This inspection has found that these forces now have
good standards of call-handling.

Weaknesses
6.13 This inspection – which has adopted a more rigorous methodology than
any earlier HMIC inspection – has so far identified the following six areas
of concern in respect of crime-recording practices by police forces:

• Crimes are not always recorded when they should be;

• Specialist departments do not always record crimes;

• Crimes being inappropriately recorded as no-crimes;

• Out-of-court disposals not effected in accordance with national

guidelines;

• Lack of adequate training; and

• Failures in quality of supervision.

6.14 Taken together, these weaknesses suggest that there is an overall lack
of victim-focus in the police recording of crime. Whilst the first contact
victims of crime have with police call-handlers is usually good, our
inspection found the following: reports from victims are not always being
believed; the oversight of crime-recording could be improved; and when
officers are using out-of-court disposals to deal with offenders, victims
are not always informed.

43
A step in the right direction, the policing of anti-social behaviour, HMIC, 2012.

55
6.15 A failure to engage fully with victims in cases of no-crime decisions or to
consider victims’ views in cases of out-of-court disposals is not in
keeping with the victim-orientated approach advocated in the HOCR, and
means that there is insufficient consideration of their needs and views.

Crimes are not always recorded when they should be

6.16 As stated in paragraph 6.6, far too many crimes that should be recorded
are going unrecorded.

6.17 Our audit thus far indicates that of the 3,102 incidents we scrutinised,
2,551 crimes should have been recorded. Our inspectors found that
2,028 were recorded correctly in accordance with the HOCR. Among
those crimes not recorded when they should have been were sexual
offences (including 11 rapes) and crimes of violence, robbery and
burglary. We discuss these findings (see paragraph 6.26) and the
contributing factors (see paragraphs 6.29–6.33) in more detail later in this
report.

6.18 As explained earlier in this report, sampling data from each force is being
used only as indicative of the accuracy of force crime-recording; it is not
of a size to be of statistical significance. Each force sample does,
however, contribute to the overall national sample from which we will be
able to arrive at a statistically sound assessment for the overall accuracy
of crime-recording within England and Wales in our October 2014 report.

6.19 As part of the inspection, we carried out an audit on a sample of incident

reports in each force. We assessed these incidents to determine if the
matter reported required the recording of a crime and, if so, whether a
crime was recorded. The results of those audits are summarised in the
table below: 44

44
These numbers are not final and may be subject to change as part of the inspection
programme. Therefore the data presented here should be treated as a snapshot of what has
been seen to date. The data are drawn from a dip-sample of records and as such are not
statistically significant or representative for each force but will be used in time to give an
indication of performance across England and Wales.

56
 Number of crimes that Number of crimes that
should have been recorded were recorded

Cheshire 85 58
City of London 59 54
Devon and Cornwall 113 94
Essex 120 110
Gloucestershire 85 76
Greater Manchester 388 265
Gwent 60 52
Hertfordshire 181 130
Metropolitan Police 1126 908
Norfolk 74 63
North Wales 78 73
North Yorkshire 64 56
South Yorkshire 118 89

6.20 In paragraph 3.40 we explain how police forces receive reports of crime
from the public. Eight of the 13 forces inspected record crime directly
from a victim by telephone. The amount of crimes directly recorded in this
way varies considerably from force to force; in one force as much as 40
percent of crime was recorded directly in this way. Therefore, it is
important to note that the table above contains the data that relate only to
the primary recording route used by all forces: that is where a force
control room creates an incident record and a crime record is completed,
where appropriate, at a later stage. Our final report will contain data from
both recording routes.

6.21 Although this is an initial finding from inspections of 13 forces out of 43,
we have identified the following issues concerning the failure correctly to
record crime:

• Investigating to record – For eight of the 13 forces inspected,

a number of reports of crime have been identified that could have
been directly recorded as a crime at the time of first contact with
police but were not. Instead, staff attended the scene, awaited
specialist support or conducted a telephone investigation some time
later, resulting in an investigate-to-record approach to crime-
recording. This means that the police do not record the incident as a
crime at first, but instead investigate the matter in order to establish
whether a crime has been committed. This delay in recording could

57
 result in the degradation of information, the victim having to repeat
information already provided, and some crimes not being recorded at
all.

It is a clear requirement of HOCR that a crime should be recorded as

soon as the reporting officer is satisfied that the circumstances
reported by or on behalf of the victim amount to a crime. The HOCR
provide: “A crime should be recorded as soon as the reporting officer
is satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been
committed … recording of the crime should not be delayed in order to
wait for further details.”

• Insufficient justification not to record a crime – In all forces

audited, the decision not to record a crime was too often not fully
justified in sufficient detail in the incident log. Some entries revealed
a lack of understanding of the HOCR and/or the criminal law.

Evidence from interviews also indicated that workload pressures and

a lack of knowledge were factors contributing to the decision not to
record a crime. It is also possible that the reasons for not recording a
crime were poorly communicated between the investigator and the
individual responsible for closing the incident log.

• Poor decision-making – We have found that where responsibility

for the decision not to record a crime rests with the investigator, the
quality of decision-making is weaker than where responsibility rests
with staff in a crime-recording bureau. This reflects the greater
experience of the staff working in the bureau who make regular
decisions in accordance with the HOCR and are directly responsible
for deciding on the final classification of crimes.

• Poorly integrated IT systems – Forces use various IT systems for

recording incidents and crimes. Our work so far has established that
there are 14 different incident-recording IT systems in use by the 43
police forces of England and Wales and 18 different crime-recording
systems. In addition, specialist departments, including those
investigating serious sexual offences and dealing with the protection
of vulnerable people, often have separate IT systems which are
primarily used for case management and information-sharing.
Inadequate crime-recording on IT systems directly affects a force’s
knowledge about crime. Without an accurate picture, there can be no
proper analysis or a full understanding of the threat, risk and possible
harm to the public. This knowledge is needed to decide where and
how best to deploy police resources. The ability to audit systems

58
 properly is impeded by the number of incompatible IT systems in use
and also because some of these systems have not been designed
with an effective audit capability.

6.22 The following case study illustrates where crime records should have
been recorded but were not.

Unrecorded physical assaults

A report of several assaults by a member of staff on a teenage victim

within a care home. This is not recorded as a crime with the reason
recorded as: "no violence - (neighbourhood team) dealing". Officers
attend and state: "attended location and informant is not on scene - this
is an argument which has been recorded on housemates’ phones; no
violence seen, we will re-attend later".

There are no details of any re-visit and officers appear not to have
spoken to the victim. The initial report details what happened and this
made it clear that the assault occurred before the housemate started
recording the crime on her telephone. As there is no evidence that this
and the previous assaults did not occur, the crimes should have been
recorded, but were not.

Specialist departments do not always record crimes

6.23 Inspectors are finding that the more serious crimes reported through
specialist investigation departments, such as those involved in the
investigation of rape and other sexual offences, are frequently not being
recorded on force crime systems. In some instances, they are not being
recorded at all.

6.24 If a rape, other sexual offence or crime is reported direct to a specialist

department, it should be recorded as such in exactly the same way as if
the report came in to a call-handling centre.

6.25 The work which specialist departments do is recognised as being highly

complex for both the police and their partner agencies. In these cases,
there are several routes by which reports of crime are received, for
example by email or at case conferences, rather than directly from
victims or persons acting on behalf of victims. The nature of the crimes
with which these departments deal, and the vulnerability of the victims in
question, make the accurate recording of crime even more important.
Victims cannot be sure to receive the assistance and support they need if
a crime has not been recorded.

59
6.26 Through the main audit of reported incidents, we found 11 reports of rape
that had not been recorded as a crime when they should have been. We
have also found allegations of crime being held on a specialist
department’s email account which had not been recorded as crimes. The
failure by police to record these crimes – committed against the most
vulnerable of victims – is of very considerable concern. Forces in which
this has occurred were immediately informed of these findings to enable
them to take action to review these crimes, ensure they are recorded,
and complete any remaining investigation.

6.27 The IT systems used by these specialist departments are often separate
from the force crime-recording system. This can obstruct the accurate
recording of crime. Of the 13 forces we have visited so far, there are
seven different types of these separate systems in use. On these, the
staff in specialist departments record referrals concerning rape and other
crimes, from such organisations such as health and social services. A
dip-sample of these specialist systems by our inspectors found three
crimes of rape which had not been recorded.

6.28 The following are two examples which have been found during our
inspection:

Example 1 – Unrecorded rape allegation

A 13-year-old child with autism told his parents that he had been sexually
assaulted by a 15-year-old male friend. Police were contacted as it was
apparent that an allegation of rape had been made. No crime was
recorded on the grounds that to do so would have a negative effect on
the victim. The incident was wrongly written off as sexual
experimentation. A crime should have been recorded.

Example 2 – Unrecorded rape allegation

A report of rape was made by a doctor on behalf of a female patient. The

victim had consented to sex with a male. When it began to hurt and she
told him to stop, he continued. This incident was reviewed by a
supervisory officer who incorrectly concluded that on the balance of
probabilities no crime had occurred. This decision was incorrect because
she withdrew her consent when she told him to stop. A crime should
have been recorded.

6.29 In an effort to understand why some reports of serious sexual offences

are not being properly recorded, inspectors are completing detailed
audits, reviews of internal policy and procedure, and unannounced visits

60
 to the relevant specialist departments. They are interviewing officers and
staff and reviewing the separate IT systems used by them.

6.30 In a number of forces, officers were found to be investigating the crime

for too long without completing a crime record. This practice is known as
investigate-to-record and is contrary to the requirements of the HOCR. In
particular, some forces were incorrectly found to be using the maximum
period provided by the HOCR to record a crime (see paragraph 3.37), to
investigate whether or not a rape had actually occurred, rather than
recording the crime from the outset. This can have a significant adverse
effect on victims of these types of crime, where being believed from the
outset is crucial. If an investigating officer fails to operate on the
presumption that the victim is telling the truth, he may put insufficient
effort into the investigation, thus compromising its quality and therefore
its prospects of success.

6.31 Police investigators were also found on occasions to be more focused on

carrying out their investigations of these serious offences and as a result
had lost sight of the need to ensure that the crimes were recorded
correctly and on a timely basis. They need to do both.

6.32 We have found that where other organisations such as social services
take the lead in public protection cases, police officers sometimes fail to
record the fact that a crime occurred. Investigators have told us that
colleagues in health and social services have, on occasions, advised
them that a crime record is inappropriate for, or unwanted by, the victim.
For example, they may not wish to criminalise the suspect. This is
incorrect. The act of recording a crime does not criminalise anyone; that
only happens when the investigation is finalised and the offender is
convicted or admits the offence and agrees to an out-of-court disposal,
such as a caution or PND. Although concerns expressed by victims
about the potential effect on suspects are understandable in many
situations, the HOCR are designed to ensure that crimes are accurately
recorded so that decisions can be made by the police about
investigations, prosecutions and crime prevention activity.

6.33 One example, where workload pressure was given as the basis for not
recording a crime, was a report of rape. In this example, it was
considered that recording the crime would entail too much work, as the
officer made a judgment that the circumstances of the complaint made it
unlikely that the case would be prosecuted. This demonstrates a serious
failure of duty to that victim and was brought to the immediate attention of
the force concerned.

61
Crimes being inappropriately recorded as no-crimes
6.34 On occasions, recorded crimes are found not to have occurred. Where
there is additional verifiable information to show this to be the case, the
record of the crime can be reclassified and is then recorded as a no-
crime. This may occur, for example, where an item that was reported
stolen is subsequently found to have been lost, or where it can be shown
that a false allegation of crime has been made (see paragraph 3.48
above).

6.35 The proportion of recorded crime that is no-crimed is approximately three

percent. In the 13 forces inspected so far, we have audited 972 reports of
robbery, rape and violence that were classified as no-crimes. The correct
decision had been made, in accordance with the HOCR, in 796 of these
972 cases. This gives us material concern about the quality of decision-
making when reclassifying a crime as a no-crime, thus removing it from
police-recorded crime altogether.

6.36 Our audit found the following for individual forces: 45

Number of incorrect Number of correct Total number of

no-crime decisions no-crime decisions no-crimes reviewed

Cheshire 29 42 71
City of London 7 34 41
Devon and Cornwall 10 94 104
Essex 5 68 73
Gloucestershire 7 46 53
Greater Manchester 26 65 91
Gwent 0 63 63
Hertfordshire 4 71 75
Metropolitan Police 21 69 90
Norfolk 6 58 64
North Wales 16 60 76
North Yorkshire 34 71 105
South Yorkshire 11 55 66

45
These numbers are not final and may be subject to change as part of the inspection
programme. Therefore, the data presented here should be treated as a snapshot of what has
been seen to date. The data are drawn from a dip-sample of records and as such are not
statistically significant or representative for each force, but will be used in time to give an
indication of performance across England and Wales.

62
6.37 Our present view is that the principal reasons for these failures include
poor knowledge in the application of the HOCR when considering the
additional verifiable information that is required to show that a crime has
not been committed, and weak or absent supervision.

6.38 We also found that the quality of decision-making in respect of no-crime

decisions was best when the individual decision-maker was separate
from service delivery and subject to oversight by the force crime registrar.
This enables a smaller cohort of individuals to develop the necessary
expertise to make these decisions. Conversely, when responsibility was
not completely separate, we found a corresponding reduction in
compliance with the HOCR.

6.39 The following case studies illustrate typical errors in no-crime decisions:

Example 1 – Victim not believed

A young man reported he had been grabbed by the throat by a woman at

a party. The woman was interviewed and denied assault, claiming the
contact was accidental. No further action was therefore taken. However,
it was no-crimed on the basis of additional verifiable information after a
review of photographs of the victim’s neck. The victim did not, however,
withdraw the complaint. The decision to no-crime was incorrectly made
on the basis that the victim was not believed.

Example 2 – Victim not believed

A male reported that whilst in nightclub toilets, another male held a knife
to his neck and demanded his watch, wallet and telephone. The wallet
was later found in a car park. CCTV showed the victim entering and
leaving the toilets. The victim was very drunk and subsequently ejected
from the club by door staff. The victim was challenged about the robbery
and confirmed that he was drunk but he said he was certain he had been
robbed. The crime report was updated: "There is no evidence to support
the fact that he was robbed and his account of what happened is not
credible". This does not constitute additional verifiable information; the
crime should have remained as a recorded crime. The absence of
corroborating information and the opinion of the investigating officer as to
the complainant’s credibility do not negate the need to record the crime.

63
Out-of-court disposals not effected in accordance with national
guidelines 46
6.40 As discussed earlier (see paragraph 3.53), our inspection considered
whether out-of-court disposals were being used in accordance with
national policy guidance, and in particular whether victims’ views were
being taken into account before the imposition of an out-of-court
disposal, and whether they were given a proper explanation of the
decision to effect an out-of-court disposal.

6.41 The degree of compliance with the national guidelines is of concern. 47

We found that in 422 of the 952 cautions, PNDs and community
resolutions that we reviewed, there was no record that victims were
consulted before the out-of-court disposal was effected. In addition, we
found that in 171 of the 1,286 cautions, PNDs, cannabis warnings and
community resolutions we reviewed, offenders were given out-of-court
disposals when their offending histories ought to have precluded the
imposition of such a disposal. In some of these cases, the offender ought
to have been charged or summonsed and taken to court.

6.42 In too many cases, we found that records kept by police of out-of-court
disposals were inadequate. In one force, different forms were in use to
record the same type of out-of-court disposal. In other forces, the forms
did not contain sufficient detail of what had taken place, and it was
therefore impossible to tell whether the offender had been fully informed
about the nature and implications of the out-of-court disposal in question.

46
HMIC are examining a dip-sample of out-of-court disposals from each force including
examples of community resolutions, PNDs, cautions and cannabis cautions. The figures
published here are not representative of England and Wales, nor are they indicative of what the
findings will be once all inspections are completed. This is a statement of our findings to date
from the partially completed programme.
47
National guidance for the use of out-of-court disposals is detailed in a number of documents:
• Home Office Circular 016/2008: Simple Cautioning – Adult Offenders. Available from
www.xact.org.uk
• Simple Cautions For Adult Offenders, 14 November 2013. Available from
www.justice.gov.uk
• Code of Practice for Adult Conditional Cautions, 8 April 2000. Available from
www.justice.gov.uk
• Home Office Police Operational Guidance for penalty Notices for Disorder, March
2005. Available from www.justice.gov.uk
• ACPO Guidance on Cannabis Possession for Personal Use, 28 January 2009.
Available from www.acpo.police.uk

64
 • Community resolutions – Our inspectors took a dip-sample of 308
community resolutions and found that in 57 cases the offender’s
previous criminal history should have precluded the use of the
disposal. In 72 of these cases, we found no record that the wishes of
the victim had been considered, and in 43 cases the crime itself was
not one for which a community resolution was appropriate.

• Penalty notices for disorder – We dip-sampled 328 PND disposals,

and found that in 24 cases the offender’s previous criminal history
should have precluded the imposition of an out-of-court disposal. In
195 cases, we could find no record that victims’ views had been
considered when issuing the PND, and in 173 cases we found
nothing recorded to confirm that the offender had been made aware
of the nature and implications of the PND.

• Cannabis warnings – We dip-sampled 334 cannabis warnings. In

134 cases, we were unable to find any record of whether the offender
had been told about the nature and implications of the warning.

• Cautions – Of the 316 cautions – simple cautions and conditional

ones – we dip-sampled, we found 13 cases where the offender’s
previous criminal history should have precluded the use of a caution.
In 155 cases, we could find no record that victims’ views were
considered when issuing the caution.

6.43 In 26 of the 316 cautions we sampled, we found nothing recorded to

confirm that the offender had been made aware of the nature and
implications of the caution. Where the police issue a caution, the
implications for the offender may be any or all of the following:

• The caution will be recorded on the police national computer.

• Where a subsequent Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check is

carried out on that person, the caution will normally be disclosed.
This will depend on a number of factors, including the nature of the
offence committed and the length of time that has elapsed since the
caution was issued; some older and more minor offences are not
disclosed.

• DBS checks may be carried out by an employer if the person applies

for certain types of work, including voluntary work, in sensitive areas
such as work with children or vulnerable adults. Enhanced DBS
checks in these areas may include other information held locally by
the police, if the information is considered relevant to the application.

• When a person is found guilty of an offence by a court, the police will

inform the court of the previous caution.

65
 • If the caution is for certain sexual offences, the offender’s name will
be placed on the register of sex offenders.
PNDs, cannabis warnings and community resolutions may also be
disclosed in future enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks 48,
and this may affect employment in sensitive jobs.
Lack of adequate training
6.44 Where the level of under-recording of crime or the inappropriate use of
the no-crime option are most evident, our inspectors are finding frontline
staff are not well-trained in crime-recording procedures and do not fully
understand the NCRS or the HOCR.

6.45 There are many classifications of crime within the HOCR and, in some
cases, the legal characteristics of the offences have a high degree of
similarity. For instance, in the case of being drunk and disorderly, or
exhibiting disorderly behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress,
the law’s distinctions are difficult, and there may be a valid choice for an
officer to make. Police officers need good training to support the
judgments they are expected to make.

6.46 Training that is being provided is often focused on those officers and staff
who are based within crime bureaux. Whilst this is expedient, and there
are examples of force-wide training and training for newly-appointed
officers in crime-data recording, police frontline staff are often left with
only limited training in this area. Where training was made available,
police frontline staff generally welcomed it and considered themselves
better equipped to record crimes accurately as a result.

Failures in quality of supervision

6.47 The inspection team has been accumulating evidence that where there is
less supervision and oversight of crime-recording, accuracy in crime-
recording is poorer.

6.48 Linked to the need for training, there is evidence that some supervisors,
including those working in specialist departments, who are expected to
make decisions based on the NCRS and the HOCR, have not received

48
Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks are used when the individual is applying for
employment (paid or otherwise) which may involve contact with children or vulnerable adults.
The enhancement of the check includes disclosure not only of previous convictions but also of
police intelligence which may be relevant.

66
 any training, and do not know the required crime-recording standard
themselves.

6.49 In some instances, our inspectors have noted that the gaps in
supervision are caused by reductions, or under-staffing, in quality
assurance teams whose responsibilities include ensuring the accuracy of
crime-recording. These shortfalls in assurance staff are often the result of
austerity measures, and are exposing forces to risk in terms of the
integrity of their recorded crime data and could, as a consequence,
reduce the quality of service to the victims of crime.

6.50 Evidence of strong governance was found in some forces, with explicit
messages to secure accurate crime-recording data. Where this was
supported by well-trained, centralised units responsible for supervision
and oversight of crime-recording, accuracy was generally of a higher
standard than elsewhere. Instances of officers being disciplined for
failures in respect of crime data integrity were few, but were found where
there was a clear message from the leadership of the force about the
importance of compliance with the NCRS and the HOCR.

Performance pressures
6.51 Much has been said and written recently about performance pressures
on police officers, including in the context of the under-recording or
misclassification of crime in official records.

6.52 It is sometimes asserted that performance pressures on police officers

create perverse incentives, and lead to failures to record crime in the first
place, to delays in the due recording of crime until an assessment has
been made of the complaint and its prospects of successful detection, or
the downgrading of the classification of an offence to one of a nature less
serious than is correct.

6.53 No enterprise can be successful without sound information about the

condition, capacity, capability, performance and security of supply of its
assets. In policing, those assets are predominantly people – police
officers and police staff. It is not only legitimate but necessary for the
performance of the police to be measured using appropriate instruments.

6.54 It is the responsibility of police leaders to ensure that their officers and
staff concentrate on what matters most, not what scores highest in the
partial and imperfect, discredited performance measurement systems of
the past. And whilst a proper qualitative assessment of the relative
importance and public good of policing activity is always necessary,
police leaders who abandon all means of measuring performance –

67
 appropriately valued – run material risks that the pendulum swings too far
the other way, and that their assets will under-perform. The removal or
reduction of targets does not and should not lead to the abandonment of
any performance measurement.

6.55 The quality of the crime data which the police collect and record has
material importance in informing the public about their level of safety and
security, the police and crime commissioner about the force’s
performance in the categories of crime in question, and police leaders
about the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations and how their
assets should best be deployed. No system is likely to be operated
consistently with perfection, and there will always be rational and
defensible differences in professional judgment about the compliant
classification of offences. However, it is essential that crime recording is
done honestly and within the rules. Police officers need to understand
and properly apply the rules, and appropriate mechanisms must be in
place to ensure due compliance, so that the users of crime statistics can
rely upon them with confidence.

6.56 In this inspection, we have so far found no appreciable and overt

evidence of performance pressures leading to failures in crime-recording,
whether under-recording or misclassification of crimes. That is perhaps
unsurprising, and would only be apparent if either a police officer were to
admit to it, or we were to find written evidence of it. We do not rule it out,
and in the remainder of the inspection we will remain alert and receptive
to any evidence of its existence. The next stage of the inspection
includes a survey of police officers and one of its objectives is the
obtaining of evidence of this nature.

68
7. Next steps

7.1 Our definitive findings in October 2014 will be based on the most
extensive national audit and inspection ever undertaken by HMIC into
crime-recording integrity.

7.2 Forces visited are already responding to our findings and are adapting
their practices as feedback is provided.

7.3 We will complete the remainder of our in-force audits and inspections
during the next few months. Our final report will be published in October
2014.

69
Annex A – Terms of reference

Background
As part of our 2013/14 inspection programme, HMIC was commissioned by the
Home Secretary to undertake inspections within all Home Office police forces to
answer the question:

“To what extent can police-recorded crime information be trusted?”

HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary has confirmed this commitment to the

Home Affairs Select Committee. 49

HMIC understands that forces can only record what is reported to them,
although they should actively work to encourage reporting of crime, and that
reporting rates vary for crime types. We also know that new crime types
emerge. However, reported crime is an important part of the overall picture and
sound recording ensures:
.
• the police can plan their work to achieve the best outcomes for victims
and communities;
• the public, government, local policing bodies and HMIC have an accurate
picture of crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) in a particular area; and
• the victims of crime and ASB are provided with appropriate access to
victim services.

Scope
The desired outcome of the inspection is an improvement in police-recording of
crime data, leading to increased public trust in police-recorded crime
information.

This inspection will examine not only how well the HOCR are applied by forces,
but also the culture and behaviours around crime-recording, and the service the
police provide to victims. At the heart of the inspection will be the interests of
victims, which will be explored through follow-up telephone calls to some victims
where crimes were not recorded.

49
Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) meeting 14 May 2013.

70
The inspection will look at crimes which, when repeated, cause significant harm
to the community, such as criminal damage or other crimes relating to anti-
social behaviour and will also consider the appropriateness of crime outcomes,
including cautions, Penalty Notices for Disorder, cannabis warnings and
community resolutions. This inspection will also review standards around
decisions taken to no-crime (not count) a crime that has already been recorded.

The scope of this inspection includes all 43 Home Office forces. The British
Transport Police (BTP) and Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) will be
asked if they wish to be included within the programme. It does not include the
National Crime Agency, any other non-Home Office forces, or forces of Crown
Dependencies or UK overseas territories.

Aims and objectives

The specific objective of the inspection is to establish in each force;

• how confident the public can be in the effectiveness of police crime-

recording;
• how effective the leadership and governance of crime data integrity is;
• how effectively victims are placed at the centre of crime-recording
decisions;
• whether crime outcomes (detections) suit the needs of victims, offenders,
the criminal justice system and the wider public interest; and
• if no-crime decisions adhere to the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR).

Methodology
The objectives will be achieved via:

• the requisition, examination and assessment of key documents from

forces, including (but not exclusively) policy and guidance in respect of
the forces’ approach to receiving reports of crime and of crime-recording;
• an assessment of the crime reporting routes used and the proportion of
crime recorded through each route;
• an audit of a representative sample of reports of crime for each of the
reporting routes that can be audited;
• interviews with key interested parties and senior police officers and staff;
• an in-force reality-testing programme to examine, check and validate
documentation, procedures and practices;
• liaison with the police professional lead, local governance bodies for
policing, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC)

71
 and Home Office reference group to ensure effective liaison with the
service during the conduct of the review;
• liaison with relevant professionals and specialists in these areas;
• liaison with police and police staff associations;
• a representative survey of the public to gauge the level of trust the public
have in police crime data and to understand the aspects of crime-
recording which really matter to them; and
• a representative survey of police officers to identify what officers think
about crime-recording, to understand what training they get, what
messages they receive from senior and middle managers regarding
crime-recording integrity and whether there is any pressure placed on
them to record or not to record crimes.

The methodology has been devised with the advice of the Crime Statistics
Advisory Committee.

Timeframe
The timescales below give an indication of when it is anticipated key stages of
the work will be completed.

• Stage 1 assessment of the crime-reporting routes used by each force –

by 1 January 2014.
• Confirm inspection schedule and resource requirements for the auditing
and fieldwork stages – by 1 January 2014.
• In-force auditing and fieldwork – 1 February to 15 August 2014.
• Provision of an interim report to the Home Secretary – April 2014.
• Publication of individual force reports – June to October 2014.
• Publication of a national report – October 2014.

Product
This interim report will be provided to the Home Secretary to provide an update
on the initial inspection findings. As the programme progresses, individual force
reports will be published for each force. This will ensure information is available
promptly and will be most useful to all interested parties. These reports will not
report a statistically robust estimate of the accuracy of crime-recording at a
force level but will report on the quality of the force crime-recording and crime
outcome arrangements.

A national thematic report covering the main points and themes will be
published once all forces have been inspected. This report will provide a

72
statistically robust estimate of crime-recording accuracy at a national level for
reports of crime which are primarily routed through incident records or a
centralised crime-recording bureau. It will also include a judgment as to the
level of confidence the public can have in the other routes by which crimes can
be reported.

73
Annex B – Force inspection dates

CRIME DATA INTEGRITY - FORCE INSPECTION DATES

Month 2014 Forces Dates (week commencing)
North Yorkshire; Devon and Cornwall 10
February Essex; Gwent 17
South Yorkshire 24
Norfolk; Gloucestershire; MPS 3
North Wales 10
March Cheshire; Hertfordshire 17
GMP; City of London 24
Cleveland; Wiltshire 31
April Humberside 7
Leicestershire 12
May Suffolk; Northamptonshire; West Yorkshire 19
West Midlands 26
Cambridgeshire; Dorset 2
Lincolnshire; Durham 9
June Sussex; Lancashire 16
Hampshire; Staffordshire 23
Dyfed Powys; Kent 30
Nottinghamshire; Merseyside 7
Avon and Somerset; Surrey 14
July
Cumbria; Bedfordshire 21
Warwickshire; West Mercia; Derbyshire 28
August South Wales; Northumbria; Thames Valley 4

74
Annex C – Methodology for the national audit

The Home Office provides national standards for the recording and counting of
notifiable offences by police forces in England and Wales (referred to as ’police-
recorded crime’ or PRC). These standards are known as the Home Office
Counting Rules for Recorded Crime (commonly referred to as HOCR). The
rules were complemented in April 2002 by the National Crime Recording
Standard (NCRS). And this additional standard received the full support of chief
constables.

One of the main purposes of the NCRS is to improve the consistency of

recording of an allegation of a crime made by a victim or his representative.
Once an allegation is confirmed, forces must record the crime formally by
applying the NCRS balance of probability test unless there is credible evidence
to the contrary. Clearly, a force’s ability to record these details properly makes
for a system that can be audited more easily, whether the system is audited by
HMIC or the force.

Aim of the audit

The CDI audit aims to measure the national rate of compliance of police-
recorded crime against these national standards (HOCR and NCRS). Based on
a representative sample of records as reported by the victim that appear to be
crimes, the compliance rate is calculated as the proportion of crimes that were
correctly recorded as a crime, compared with the total that should have been
recorded as a crime. Crimes correctly identified as such but assigned to the
wrong offence classification will also be audited.

Alongside our calculation of the national average compliance rate, we will also
calculate the compliance rate of specific crime types at a national level. 50 These
figures will show how rates vary by these crime types and help to avoid any
misinterpretation that the same compliance rate applies to different crime types.

We do not intend to make judgments about individual forces’ crime-

recording arrangements based on compliance rates alone because the
sample sizes are too small to achieve an acceptable level of precision

50
Covers the 43 police forces in England and Wales, but excludes the British Transport Police.

75
(within +/-5%). The cost of obtaining sufficient sample sizes at force level
is unaffordable.

At force level, our inspections will be based upon a qualitative assessment of

local recording arrangements. This will cover:

• leadership and governance

• systems and processes
• people and skills
• quality of service provided to the victim.

We may use the national sampling data as part of a force inspection, but only if
this is supported by other qualitative assessments of the force’s crime-recording
arrangements.

The national audit will not examine:

• Non-crimes that were wrongly recorded as crimes. These make up a

small percentage of cases. 51
• Fraud offences. Action Fraud (a public body) has taken responsibility for
recording fraud reported by victims in all police force areas, although the
transfer of when this took place varied between forces.
• Out-of-court disposals which will be examined as part of the local force
inspections.

Time period the sample will cover

The sample will be drawn from the same 12-month period for all forces and will
provide a long enough period to measure accuracy of recording. The 12 months
to 31 October 2013 were chosen as this accommodated HMIC’s crime record
route analysis in December 2013 (described in more detail below), required
before the audit. However, the force-level inspections will take account of
changes in arrangements by the force since the samples were taken.

51
From over 300 incidents examined as part of an inspection into Kent (2013) crime-recording,
only one crime was recorded when it should not have been. This case was a technical failure,
where a victim-based crime had been recorded, but there was no victim confirmation, so it
should have remained a crime-related incident (CRI). Further work by HMIC found that from a
sample of almost 3,000 incidents from eight forces, there were no cases of over-recorded crime.

76
Population to be examined
Our aim is to draw as representative a sample as possible, irrespective of the
ways in which different forces record different crimes. However, the routes by
which different crimes come into forces’ recording systems vary. The majority
enter via the incident IT system, but many come by other routes such as
reporting at a front desk in a police station or to specialist units (e.g. the
reporting of a rape). The possibility of bias would arise if, in drawing our
samples, we were to fail to take sufficient account of differences in recording
arrangements in individual forces.

To test for this risk, workshops were held with each force to identify the
proportions of different crimes notified by different reporting routes. The results
were validated by crime type against the force’s recorded crime figures
uploaded onto the Home Office database. 52 Validation identified that of the 43
forces, 40 provided figures which were broadly in line with those on the Home
Office database. The remaining forces provided snapshots of data covering part
of the 12-month period. This was mainly due to changes in these forces’ IT
systems, which made it difficult to provide a full set of data. The figures from
these forces were scaled up to estimate 12-month outputs, and were accepted
as similar to those figures on the Home Office database.

The results of the crime record route analysis indicated that 92 percent 53 of
crime that is recorded (excluding fraud) came from a route that can be audited
across all forces (these were crimes reported through police control rooms,
directly to crime-recording centres, or both). The sample population of the audit
was therefore based on incidents drawn from these auditable routes.

Of the remainder, one percent came from specialist routes, which included
public protection and rape counselling units. The other seven percent came
from a variety of routes, such as reports by a member of the public to an officer
on foot patrol or at the front desk of a police station. As far as is practical, these
other routes will be assessed through local inspection.

52
The Annual Data Requirement 111-114 (a statutory requirement of forces to provide this data
to the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996) covers the provisions of aggregated monthly
data on police-recorded crime.
53
These figures are for all recorded crime (excluding fraud); for the crime types these figures
varied from 86% for robbery and sexual offences, to 97% for burglary.

77
Selection of crime types
To establish a comparable set of crime types to be audited, a review was
conducted of each force’s opening incident codes. As we expected, some
forces could provide more detail than others. The Metropolitan Police Service,
for instance, has 16 opening incident codes, whereas Essex has more than 200
opening codes. However, we were able to identify a number of common
opening codes sharing the same crime classifications:

• violence (with or without injury)

• sexual offences (including rape)
• robbery
• burglary
• criminal damage
• other offences (excluding fraud) – this is a residual category of everything
except the previous five categories and fraud.

Rape cases will be separately audited via a dip-sample, 54 as the numbers are
too small to form part of a separate sub-group to produce robust statistical
outputs: based on the 12 months ending 31 October 2013, they made up less
than one percent of all recorded crime, excluding fraud. Forces adopt different
approaches to receiving reports of rape, which include specialist units, and
therefore the standard audit approach will not be sufficient to provide a full
picture of rape recording accuracy.

Sampling technique
Our sampling technique is designed to provide auditors with sufficient records to
test the accuracy of the individual crime types (listed above) with a similar level
of confidence. We decided that the most efficient way to achieve this was to
take a disproportionate stratified sample. 55 There were two reasons for our
decision:
• The six crime types (violence, sexual offences, robbery, burglary,
criminal damage and other offences) varied in size. Robbery and sexual
offences each account for about two percent of recorded crime, whereas

54
A dip-sample is a selection of records chosen to provide indicative rather than statistically
robust evidence.
55
A sampling method in which the sample size for a particular group is not proportional to the
relative size of the total.

78
 violence accounts for about 17 percent. The smaller sub-groups will be
selected with a higher sampling fraction than the rest of the other sub-
groups to ensure a larger number of them are in the final sample. This
allows a better statistical comparison to be made.

• Part of the audit aims to look at a dip-sample of rape records, to provide

indicative results. By having a disproportionate sample of sexual offences
(i.e. the sample is larger than if a proportionate approach had been
taken) it is more likely that these will include more rape offences.

The samples of the six crime types will be weighted to ensure that the ‘all crime’
estimate is a reflection of the crime type proportions.

Sample size and confidence interval

We apply the 95 percent confidence level as the generally accepted level of
certainty used in statistical tests. Any sample may produce estimates that differ
from the figures that would have been obtained if the whole population had
been examined. At the 95 percent confidence level, with many repeats of an
audit under the same conditions, we expect the confidence interval would
contain the true population value 95 times out of 100.

The audit aims to select a random sample size necessary to yield confidence
intervals 56 of no more than +/- three percentage points for all crimes and +/- five
percentage points for individual crime types (at the 95 percent confidence level)
at the national level. To achieve the appropriate sample size of incidents
requires a prior estimate of the accuracy of force’s recording.

Our prior estimate is based upon HMIC’s 2012 inspection of 12 forces’ recorded
crime figures, together with results from a similar inspection of Kent 57 in April
2013. From this evidence, we have adopted an assumption that 75 percent of
classifications were correct and this suggests a sample of around 5,500

56
The confidence interval provides an estimated range of values that the given population being
examined is likely to fall within. For example, if an audit found that 85 percent of crimes were
correctly recorded with a confidence interval of +/- three percent, then we could be confident
that between 82 percent and 88 percent of crimes were correctly recorded of the population for
the period being examined.
57
Crime recording in Kent - A report commissioned by the Police and Crime Commissioner for
Kent, HMIC, June 2013.

79
crimes 58 across the six crime types (at the 95 percent confidence level) will be
examined.

Sample selection
Not all incidents generate a crime. Evidence from previous HMIC crime-
recording audits suggests the ratio between incidents opened with the ‘all crime’
crime code is 1.5 incidents to each crime. For example, if there were 300
incidents opened with a crime opening code, this may yield 200 notifiable
crimes. This ratio varies by the type of crime (it may be higher or lower) and
risks some under- or over-sampling. To reduce this risk, a ratio of 1.5 will be
applied to all crime types, with an additional ten percent of records being
chosen to guard against crime types which may have a higher ratio. However,
we will review the outputs after the first group of forces has been audited, and
where necessary adjust the sampling fractions.

A sample will be taken from the list of records that each force provides to HMIC
for the 12-month period to 31 October 2013. These lists will contain entries such
as the unique reference ID, the date the record was raised and the crime type
opening and closing code. Duplicate records will be removed along with other
ineligible records (e.g. fraud offences).

The sample will use the opening codes as they will include incidents 59 which are
closed incorrectly but may contain crimes. Take, for example, a call from a
victim of burglary which is opened on the incident system as a burglary, the
incident record contains enough information to record a burglary, but is then
closed incorrectly as a suspicious incident. Were we to draw our sample on
closing crime codes (rather than opening incident codes), this burglary would
have been missed because it was not closed as a crime. Of course, if the
situation were reversed – opening incident code ‘suspicious incident’ and
closing code ‘burglary’ – then the nature of the risk is similar, but we judge that
the scale of the risk is less.

To allow an equal probability of selection across the 12-month reference period,

the selected sample from each force will be grouped into the month the record

58
This figure is the number of crimes that should have been recorded based on HMIC’s
auditors’ assessment in accordance with the Home Office Counting Rules.
59
Assigning incidents to crime may be done on incomplete or uncertain information. Therefore
the accuracy rate must be viewed as an estimate.

80
was raised, and a random record will be selected from each month. Therefore,
the first 12 records will contain a randomised record from each month.

Audit quality and validation

The quality of audit decisions depends on the knowledge, experience and skills
of the auditors. All auditors are required to attend a three-day Home Office
Counting Rules and Crime Data Integrity course provided by HMIC’s specialist
staff. The training was overseen by the national crime registrar who attended
some of the courses and validated the course content.

Monitoring quality during the audit program

To ensure consistency, the results of each audit will be subject to peer review
by an expert outside the audit team. In addition, forces will have the opportunity
to review our decisions. We aim to resolve any issues with the force in the first
instance, but if no agreement can be reached, then the matter will be passed to
the CDI NCRS expert at HMIC for consideration in consultation with the national
crime registrar. The ultimate decision on reconciliation of any disputed cases
will rest with HMIC’s senior reporting officer (SRO) for the CDI inspection.

Gaps in knowledge
The methodology for the crime data audit has been designed to provide the
best evidence in the time and resources available. However, there are some
gaps which are likely to account for a small proportion of crimes and which are
more difficult to audit. One issue in particular attracted our attention: whether
some anti-social behaviour incidents are miscoded crime incidents.

To estimate the probability of such an occurrence, we analysed the relevant

data from our 2012 audit. This rough estimate suggested that only about three
percent of ASB incidents should have been recorded as crimes. While we would
have preferred to review this issue in more depth this year, the larger samples
involved for these apparently rare occurrences could not be accommodated.
Instead, we intend to review this issue further as part of next year’s audit.

81