Accessibility options:

Volume Crime Scrutiny

The Volume Crime Scrutiny was the first time the Authority used the Scrutiny Panel process to carry out scrutinies.  The full reports are available to download at the bottom of this page.

The Audit, Risk and Governance Committee will monitor and evaluate the progress made against these recommendations on a quarterly basis

Objectives

The Panel aimed to achieve the following:

  • Examine the ability of the Force to:

    • quality assure crime files (including the quality of file being prepared, the quality of investigation and the quality of prosecution file)
    • monitor progress of investigations and
    • build files to arrest standards. 
  • Identify any areas of improvement that would reduce the number of files submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that are subsequently rejected(due to poor file quality) *
  • Carry out process mapping across the three Division of the volume crime investigation process, from report to detection and finalisation.  Highlight any good practice, gaps in services, weaknesses in processes or any particular areas for development.
  • Consider the role of partner organisations in tackling volume crime (e.g. the CPS) and make any appropriate suggestions for improvement.
  • Identify evidence based good practice.
  • Ascertain through consideration of activity analysis of Crime Management Units and Volume Crime Units if any recommendations relating to efficiency or productivity can be made.

 * During the period October 2006 – October 2007, 380 crime files were submitted to the CPS, of these 171 (45%) were returned as there was insufficient evidence to charge the person.

Scope

In order to maximise the benefits from the scrutiny process, the Panel explored the following specific areas relating to file quality issues within the context of volume crime:

  •  The processes relating to file preparation and file quality (aiming to reduce duplication and minimise the waste of time/efforts/resources).
  • Supervision requirements.
  • Training requirements.
  • Crown Prosecution Service Capacity, how they are affecting the process and the Force's perception of successful prosecution.
  • Corporate consistency/Division differences – are the approaches fit for purpose? What are the reasons for them, would a county approach be feasible or desirable?
  • Explore timeliness issues of dealing with offenders.

Findings and Recommendations

The Panel made the following 8 recommendations:

  1. The Panel recommends that the Force carry out additional analysis to identify any trends, themes or patterns that are linked to poor file quality in order that improvements can be made to reduce the number of files that are submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service and are subsequently returned for further work.
  2. The Panel recommends that the Force consider sharing the good practice identified in the South where appropriate in the East and West Divisions.
  3. The Panel recommends that the Force consider delivering training for call takers to Professionalising the Investigation Programme (PIP) level 1 or equivalent.
  4.  The Panel recommend that the Force consider sharing and implementing good practice regarding the electronic updating of crime information on the Crime Information System (CIS) across the Divisions.
  5. The Panel support that the review of Prosecution Team Performance Management (PTPM) performance information and recommend that the number of crimes and the number of offenders are included as part of the analysis.
  6. The Panel recommend that the Force introduce a corporate approach to managing volume crime that is commensurate with the outcome of the sustainable funding decision.
  7. The Panel suggest that the Authority monitors the Force plans to deliver additional training related to volume crime.
  8. The Panel recommend that further work is undertaken to improve the Force’s approach to supervision and that the opportunity to implement change is accepted, to a lesser or greater extent relative to the sustainable funding bid.