PEEL CDI judgment criteria

Published on: 26 April 2021

Contents

  1. PEEL CDI judgment criteria
    1. To what extent can police-recorded crime information be trusted?
    2. Explanatory table 1
    3. Explanatory table 2

Print this document

PEEL CDI judgment criteria

To what extent can police-recorded crime information be trusted?
Diagnostic A force that is outstanding… A force that is good… A force that is adequate… A force that requires improvement… A force that is inadequate…
1. To what extent is the force recording all reported crime? is recording a substantial majority* of reported crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is recording a substantial proportion* of reported crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is recording a high proportion* of reported crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is not recording a high proportion* of reported crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is not recording a substantial proportion* of reported crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS
2. To what extent is the force recording all reported violent crime? is recording a substantial majority* of reported violent crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS. is recording a substantial proportion* of reported violent crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is recording a high proportion* of reported violent crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is not recording a high proportion* of reported violent crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS “is not recording a substantial proportion* of reported violent crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS
3. To what extent is the force recording all reported sexual offences? is recording a substantial majority* of reported sexual offence crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is recording a substantial proportion* of reported sexual offence crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is recording a high proportion* of reported sexual offence crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is not recording a high proportion* of reported sexual offence crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS is not recording a substantial proportion* of reported sexual offence crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS
4. To what extent is the force recording all reports of rape? is recording all reported rape crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: by the person receiving a 3rd party referral and without the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes) is recording all reported rape crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – but not all of these records are being created at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: this achievement requires some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or the decision to record is delayed pending some initial investigation) is not recording all reported rape crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – but those that are not recorded are being recorded as another crime or an N100 and these records are being created at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: by the person receiving a 3rd party referral and without the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or some initial investigation) is not recording all reported rape crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS, and those not recorded are not being recorded as another crime or N100, but all those that are recorded are being recorded at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: by the person receiving a 3rd party referral and without the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or some initial investigation) is not recording all reported rape crimes – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – and not all of those records that are being recorded are being created at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: this achievement requires some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or the decision to record is being delayed pending some initial investigation).
5. To what extent is the force correctly using classification N100 in regard to reports of rape? is correctly using classification N100 for all reports of rape for which a decision is taken not to record a crime. is correctly using classification N100 on most occasions where a decision is taken not to record a reported crime of rape (i.e. only 1 or 2 errors are identified) and any failure to correctly use classification N100 did not result in any failure to record a crime of rape. is correctly using classification N100 on most occasions where a decision is taken not to record a reported crime of rape (i.e. only 1 or 2 errors are identified) and any failure to correctly use classification N100 did not result in any failure to record a crime of rape, but did result in there being no investigation and/or safeguarding opportunities were missed. is correctly using classification N100 on most occasions where a decision is taken not to record a reported crime of rape (i.e. only 1 or 2 errors are identified) but the failure to correctly use classification N100 resulted in a failure to record a crime of rape. is only correctly using classification N100 on some occasions where a decision is taken not to record a reported crime of rape (i.e. 3 or more errors are identified) or is not using classification N100 at all.
6. To what extent is the force recording crimes received into its safeguarding / protecting vulnerable people unit? is recording a substantial majority* of reports of crime received directly into it’s safeguarding / protecting vulnerable people unit – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: by the person receiving a 3rd party referral and without the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes). is recording a substantial majority* of reports of crime received directly into it’s safeguarding / protecting vulnerable people unit – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – but not all of these records are being created at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: this achievement requires some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or the decision to record is being delayed pending some initial investigation). is recording a high proportion* of reports of crime received directly into it’s safeguarding / protecting vulnerable people unit – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: by the person receiving a 3rd party referral and without the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes). is recording a high proportion* of reports of crime received directly into it’s safeguarding / protecting vulnerable people unit – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – but not all of these records are being created at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed (for example: this achievement requires some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or the decision to record is being delayed pending some initial investigation). is not recording a substantial proportion* of reports of crime received directly into it’s safeguarding / protecting vulnerable people unit – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS
7. To what extent is the force ensuring that all crimes are identified and recorded from calls finalised as anti-social behaviour? is recording all reported crimes from incidents finalised as anti-social behaviour – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed – without the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes. is recording all reported crimes from incidents finalised as anti-social behaviour – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS – but this achievement requires some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or the decision to record is being delayed pending some initial investigation. is not identifying and recording all reported crimes from incidents finalised as anti-social behaviour – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS but all those that are recorded are being recorded at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed – without the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or the decision to record being delayed pending some initial investigation. is not identifying and recording all reported crimes from incidents finalised as anti-social behaviour – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS and either:
– not all those that are recorded are being recorded at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed; or
– this achievement requires the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or the decision to record is being delayed pending some initial investigation.		 is not identifying and recording all reported crimes from incidents finalised as anti-social behaviour – in compliance with the HOCR / NCRS and:
– not all those that are recorded are being recorded at the first point that the person receiving the report should be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed; and
– this achievement requires the need for some initial crime recording decisions to be corrected by back office / supporting processes or the decision to record is being delayed pending some initial investigation.
8. To what extent is the force recording reports of crime within the time allowed by the NCRS? is recording a substantial majority* of reported crimes – in compliance with the timeframes permitted within the HOCR / NCRS is recording a substantial proportion* of reported crimes – in line with the timeframes permitted within the HOCR / NCRS and at the first point that a crime recording decision should be taken. is recording a high proportion* of reported crimes – in line with the timeframes permitted within the HOCR / NCRS is recording a high proportion* of reported crimes – in line with the timeframes permitted within the HOCR / NCRS is not recording a substantial proportion* of reported crimes – in line with the timeframes permitted within the HOCR / NCRS
9. To what extent do the systems and processes for the recording of crime support the force’s efforts to comply with its public sector equality duty? has systems and processes which capture all relevant equality information when a person reports a crime, uses this information to analysis crime as it affects those communities with protected characteristics that it serves and responds to this crime in a proportionate way, reflecting the service provided to its communities more generally. has systems and processes which capture all relevant equality information when a person reports a crime, uses this information to analyse crime as it affects those communities with protected characteristics that it serves but does not use this analysis to ensure it responds to this crime in a proportionate way, reflecting the service provided to its communities more generally. has systems and processes which capture all relevant equality information when a person reports a crime, but does not use this information to analyse crime as it affects those communities with protected characteristics that it serves and is therefore not able to be confident that it responds to crime affecting communities with protected characteristics in a proportionate way, reflecting the service provided to its communities more generally. has systems and processes which capture some relevant equality information when a person reports a crime and uses this information to analysis crime as it affects those communities with protected characteristics for which it collects this information, and responds to this crime in a proportionate way, reflecting the service provided to its communities more generally. has systems and processes which capture some relevant equality information when a person reports a crime, and either:
– uses this information to analyse crime as it affects those communities with protected characteristics that it serves but does not use this analysis;
or
– does not use this information to analyse crime as it affects those communities with protected characteristics that it serves
and is therefore not able to be confident that it responds to crime affecting communities with protected characteristics in a proportionate way, reflecting the service provided to its communities more generally.
10. To what extent does the force use crime recording audits to maintain / improve its crime recording standards? has a crime-recording audit schedule and carries out regular crime recording audits which are scrutinised at chief officer level. has a crime-recording audit schedule and carries out regular crime recording audits but these are not always scrutinised at chief officer level. has a crime-recording audit schedule but this is not always followed but what audits are completed are scrutinised at chief officer level. has a crime-recording audit schedule but this is not always followed and what audits are completed are not scrutinised at chief officer level. does not have a crime-recording audit schedule.
11. To what extent does the force have an effective governance process in place to scrutinise crime data integrity arrangements in the force and to oversee the application of effective and efficient crime recording standards? has governance arrangements in place at a strategic level that scrutinise crime data integrity arrangements in the force, these are effective in ensuring the actions necessary to address areas for improvement are identified and progressed in a timely manner, with progress against these actions monitored regularly through these governance arrangements. has governance arrangements in place at a strategic level that scrutinise crime data integrity arrangements in the force, these are effective in ensuring the actions necessary to address areas for improvement are identified but these are not always progressed in a timely manner, although progress against these actions is monitored regularly through these governance arrangements. has governance arrangements in place at a strategic level that scrutinise crime data integrity arrangements in the force, these are effective in ensuring the actions necessary to address areas for improvement are identified but these are not always progressed in a timely manner, and progress against these actions is not monitored regularly through these governance arrangements. has governance arrangements in place at a strategic level that scrutinise crime data integrity arrangements in the force, but these do not always ensure the actions necessary to address areas for improvement are identified and progressed. does not have governance arrangements in place at a strategic level that scrutinise crime data integrity arrangements in the force.

*See explanatory table 1

 

Explanatory table 1

N.B. The first line that reflects the audit finding will be applied (working from the top)
The mid-point recording accuracy sits within the range: Judgement to be applied for the element being considered
0% – up to 87% Inadequate – unless 85% up to 87%, in which case consider whether the types of crimes that are not being recorded provide for a judgment of requires improvement (i.e. are they of a lower risk to members of the public; and/or was this recording accuracy achieved without a proportion of initial crime recording decisions being corrected by back office / supporting processes).
85% – up to 90% Requires Improvement – unless 87% up to 90%, in which case consider whether the types of crimes that are not being recorded provide for a judgment of adequate (i.e. are they of a lower risk to members of the public; and/or was this recording accuracy achieved without a proportion of initial crime recording decisions being corrected by back office / supporting processes).
87% – up to 92% Adequate – unless 90% up to 92%, in which case consider whether the types of crimes that are not being recorded provide for a judgment of good (i.e. are they of a lower risk to members of the public; and/or was this recording accuracy achieved without a proportion of initial crime recording decisions being corrected by back office / supporting processes).
above 90% – up to 100% Good – unless 94% or above, in which case consider whether the types of crimes that are not being recorded provide for a judgment of outstanding (i.e. are they of a lower risk to members of the public; and/or was this recording accuracy achieved without a proportion of initial crime recording decisions being corrected by back office / supporting processes).
above 94% – up to 100% Outstanding – unless 99% or below, in which case refer in the first instance to the judgment criteria for a judgment of good.

Explanatory table 2
Assessment of violent crime, sexual offences or rape (Diagnostic 2,3,4) Graded judgment
If the recording accuracy of 2 or more of the above elements are inadequate The overall judgment must be inadequate.
If the recording accuracy of only 1 of the above elements is inadequate The overall judgment must not exceed requires improvement. However, 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 overall judgment must not exceed requires improvement. However, 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 overall judgment must not exceed adequate. However, the judgment may be requires improvement or inadequate when all elements of the inspection are taken into account.
If the recording accuracy of 2 or more of the above elements are Adequate The overall judgment must not exceed adequate. However, the judgment may be requires improvement or inadequate when all elements of the inspection are taken into account.
If the recording accuracy of only 1 of the above elements is Adequate The overall judgment must not exceed good. However, the judgment may be adequate, requires improvement or inadequate when all elements of the inspection are taken into account.
In all other cases It is possible for the overall judgment to be outstanding. However, the judgment may be good, adequate or requires improvement when all elements of the inspection are taken into account.

Last updated: 21 March 2023