Crime data integrity programme - judgment criteria

The process for determining overall graded judgments for the crime data integrity (CDI) programme consists of three stages. These were updated in 2017 to marginally reduce, and broaden, the recording rates required to enable each judgment to be applied; and to separate the 16 judgment criteria of this inspection into three core questions for which individual graded judgments will be published. These are set out below.

Elements of the inspection

Each inspection consists of an assessment of the extent to which the force:

  • records all reported:
    • crime
    • violent crime
    • sexual offences
    • rapes;
  • correctly uses classification N100 in regards to reports of rape;
  • records crimes received into its safeguarding/vulnerable people unit;
  • identifies and records crime regarding modern slavery;
  • records reports of crime within the time allowed by the NCRS;
  • correctly cancels recorded reports of:
    • rape
    • other sexual offences
    • violent crime
    • robbery;
  • obtains the information necessary for it to understand and apply an equality test to its crime-recording decisions;
  • has implemented the recommendations made in our 2014 CDI inspection;
  • places the victim at the centre of crime-recording decisions; and
  • has implemented the national action plan for CDI.

Stage 1

Based on the above elements of the inspection, a graded judgment (outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate) will be applied to each of the following core questions. The graded judgements for each of these questions are then considered when determining an overall graded judgment for each force:

  1. How effective is the force at recording reported crime?
  2. How efficiently do the systems and processes in the force support accurate crime-recording?
  3. How well does the force demonstrate the leadership and culture necessary to meet the national standards for crime-recording?

Greater weighting will be given to the recording rates of the following three crime types:

  • violence
  • sexual offences
  • rape.

These were the areas of greatest concern identified in our 2014 report.

Therefore, to come to a graded judgment for core question 1 (How effective is the force at recording reported crime?) we will place greater emphasis on these three elements in deciding the graded judgment.

This approach is set out in the table below.

Assessment of violent crime, sexual offences
or rape for core question 1
Graded judgment
If the recording accuracy of 2 or more of the above elements are inadequate The judgment must be inadequate.
If the recording accuracy of only 1 of the above elements is inadequate The judgment must not exceed requires improvement. The judgment may be inadequate when all elements of the inspection are taken into account.
If the recording accuracy of 2 or more of the above elements are requires improvement The judgment must not exceed requires improvement. The judgment may be inadequate when all elements of the inspection are taken into account.
If the recording accuracy of only 1 of the above elements is requires improvement The judgment must not exceed good. The judgment may be requires improvement or inadequate when all elements of the inspection are taken into account.
In all other cases It is possible for the judgment to be outstanding. However, the judgment may be good or requires improvement when all elements of the inspection are taken into account.

Detailed criteria by question

The detailed judgment criteria provides further explanation of how our initial judgments are made for each of the elements. These criteria, updated in January 2017, reflect the general principle from the Home Office Counting Rules that “victims are believed and benefit from statutory entitlements under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime“.

For reference, the previous judgment criteria are available.

Stage 2

Determining the overall graded judgment

To determine the overall graded judgment the CDI programme will consider the HMIC’s standard grading criteria, as summarised in the table below.

Graded judgment Cause of concern
with recommendation
Area for improvement
No recommendation
Outstanding no no
Good no may be present
Requires improvement may be present must be present
Inadequate must be present may be present

Stage 3

To ensure consistency, a moderation process will be undertaken. As the CDI reports will be published in small batches this will involve moderation across those reports to be published, and consideration of the graded judgments already applied to previously published reports.