This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda item
  • Agenda item

    Crime Data Integrity, Recorded Crime & Crime Outcomes

    Minutes:

    1.      The Commissioner introduced the report which was a follow-up to the previous report to the Panel in 2017 which highlighted the poor crime data accuracy once it had been identified via an HMIC inspection.  The Commissioner reiterated that he and the Chief Constable had been surprised by the data integrity issue considering that Kent Police had been found to be performing very well in all other areas.  The Commissioner explained that the Chief Constable had put an action plan in place to rectify the problem, at his direction. 

     

    2.      The key feature of this action plan, in comparison to the follow up work undertaken by Kent Police on this matter previously, was that HMIC had been closely involved in developing and implementing the solution, ensuring that the internal audit and recording processes put in place were in line with the requirements and expectations.  It was expected that this would prevent a future decline in accuracy as had been seen following the inspection in 2014.  The Commissioner reassured the Panel that the majority of recording ‘errors’ under the HMIC definition were related to counting rules and exactly how many crime reports should be created for the same incident, meaning that the data inaccuracy did not necessarily correlate with a failure to record criminal actions or support victims appropriately.  In particular, the Commissioner commented that the Chief Constable had given assurances that in more serious cases related to serious violence or sexual assault, all victims had received the correct support even if their incident had not been recorded as an individual crime.  The Commissioner advised that HMICFRS were returning to conduct a further inspection on this issue on 1 October and the Chief Constable expected the results to show a level of 93 – 94% crime data accuracy, which was a good level nationally.  The results of the inspection were expected in 2019.

     

    3.      The Commissioner provided an overview of recorded crime, as detailed in the report.  He explained that the figures had been increasing, in line with an expectation that the work regarding data integrity would show an increase in recorded crime.  However, he recognised that some of the increases represented genuine increases in crime.  Usable data for like for like comparisons was expected in 2019.

     

    4.      The Commissioner advised the Panel that consideration of context surrounding the crime figures was important as the focus for Policing, as per his Plan, was on the high harm cases.  There were low numbers for these, compared to the other volume crime issues but they were more serious.  The Commissioner noted that while recorded crime was up all over the country, the National Crime Survey indicated that crime was levelling out.  He commented that regardless of the number of crimes, it was important to carefully consider the outcomes being achieved, hence why an update on this had been provided in the report.

     

    5.      The Commissioner provided an update on crime outcomes, explaining the results of Police investigation and crime recording.  He advised that, nationally, justice outcomes were down from 15% to 9% in 2017.  In Kent, the number cases not progressed because the victim did not wish to support (IP decline) had risen.  These IP decline outcomes made up over half of the recorded crimes where a named offender was not prosecuted.

     

    6.      Responding to questions, the Commissioner provided the following information:

    ·         The Commissioner was not aware of problems for Police accessing District Council CCTV, though he noted that in the past these processes had depended on good relationships between the staff involved.  He hoped that the Asset Management System due in 2019 would assist in ensuring consistency.  The Commissioner was more concerned about decisions locally to decommission CCTV given the impact this would have on crime investigation.

    ·         The reasons for the increase in violent crime were varied and not down to a single main factor; some was linked to domestic abuse, some was due to crime recording changes.  The Violence Reduction Strategy led by the Commissioner was expected to support managing this.

    ·         The Commissioner confirmed that additional investment into the Investigation Management Unit and the Force Control Room had improved the service and were expected to make the improvements sustainable, particularly in terms of tackling violence against vulnerable people.

    ·         The Commissioner recognised the risks around social media presenting a less positive view of the county, as people more often shared negative stories but did not share reassurance messages.  He assured the Panel that Kent was a safe county.

    ·         The Commissioner would work with Panel Officers to provide to further detail on justice outcomes for different crime types.  He emphasised the importance of out of court disposals and other non-charge related outcomes such as community resolutions and restorative justice as these could better resolve the matter for the victim.

     

     

    RESOLVED that the report be noted.

     

    Supporting documents: