Protective Marking Not Protectively Marked Publication Scheme Y

							Protective Marking   Not Protectively Marked

Publication Scheme   Y
Y/N
Title                Impact Assessment for the policy regarding
                     Crime screening and secondary investigation
                     within the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
Version              1
Summary              This document details how the impact of a
                     particular MPS policy has been assessed in
                     relation to race equality issues. It is completed in
                     compliance with the Race Relations
                     (Amendment) Act, 2000.
Branch / OCU         Territorial Policing Crime Operations Strategic
                     Committee
Review date          October 2007
Policy: Crime screening and secondary investigation within the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).


Outline the research or data you have used to assess the impact of this
policy
   a) What research material or data have you used to assess the
       impact of this policy?

     The data used to assess the impact of this policy was obtained from the
     following sources :-
     • The MPS Computerised Crime Recording Information System (CRIS).
     •   MPS Performance Information Bureau (PIB).
     •   The Thematic Inspection Report on Crime Screening compiled by the
         MPS Inspectorate in April 2003.
     •   Briefing note on research into use of Screening Code 81 (Screened
         Out – Solvable – No special Factors) compiled by Territorial Policing
         Crime Policy Unit (TPCPU) in June 2004.

     b) Summarise the findings

     From the research undertaken it was clear that the basic principles of the
     crime screening policy are being adhered to. The impact of this has been
     the deployment of resources to the investigation of Mandatory crimes and
     to solvable MPS Priority Crimes. There are, however, apparent difficulties
     regarding the use of Screening Code 81 (Screened Out-Solvable-No
     Special Factors). A dip sample of 43 crimes screened out using this code
     revealed that the incorrect screening code had been used in nearly 40% of
     cases. These facts are galvanised in both the Thematic Inspection Report
     and Territorial Policing (TP) Crime Policy Briefing Note referred to above.

     It is also apparent, due to regular telephone enquiries made to the TPCPU,
     there is currently a lack of consistency in application of the screening
     policy within individual BOCU’s.

     c) Outline what you propose to do as a result of the research or data

     The policy is to be revised as described below in response to c) below.
     This will remove the need for Screening Code 81 and will standardise the
     application of the screening policy across the MPS.


Outline how you have consulted, internally or externally, to assess the
impact of this policy

a)       How the consultation was carried out

The main consultation process was completed by way of e-mail or personal
visit. Use was also made of previous written communications gleaned during
the initial compilation of this policy.
The persons contacted directly were MPS personnel within the Crime
Management Units across all MPS boroughs and all relevant specialist
departments. BOCU Commanders and Crime Managers were also consulted,
as were the Public Reassurance Team and the Police Federation.

Indirectly, the policy was sent for assessment to an Independent Advisory
Group and Internal Consultancy Groups via the Diversity Directorate (DCC4).

Telephone interviews were carried out with policy officers in Greater
Manchester Police, West Midlands Police, South Wales Police, Dyfed Powys
Constabulary and Gwent Constabulary. These forces were selected due to
either a) their geographical similarity to the MPS or b) their successful
performance in respect of detected crime for the year 2002/3.

Opinions were also sought from the MPS CRIS Client Unit and the CRIS User
Support Team.

A focus group was held to discuss issues relating to the available ‘screening
codes’ used within the CRIS system and to seek opinions as to whether a
simplified process would be desirable. Representatives attended the meeting
from BOCU Crime Management Units, PIB, TPCPU, Performance Review
Unit, and Department of Strategic Development (DCC2).

b)    A summary of the responses

The replies mainly indicated a positive approach to the policy in the impact
areas mentioned above. However there is some concern around public
reassurance regarding the screening out of non-priority solvable crimes.

None of the other police forces mentioned have a policy, which allows a
potentially solvable crime to be ‘screened out’ purely for reasons relating to
resources. All such crimes where there appears to be a positive line of
enquiry receive a secondary investigation and any decision to discontinue an
enquiry due to resource implications is made at a local level by the crime
manager.

Crime Management Unit (CMU) Managers responded by suggesting that the
policy would benefit from being simplified i.e. removing Screening Code 81
whilst retaining some of the other screening codes used for management
information purposes. At the meeting referred to in a) above the general
opinion was that the current policy would benefit from reducing the number of
codes used for crime screening from thirteen to five. A suggestion was made
to include prolific and priority offenders as one of the special factors to
consider when deciding whether or not to pursue a screened IN crime further.

c)    What you propose to do as a result of the consultation

The policy is to be revised to the effect that four reason codes will exist for
determining that crime should receive a secondary investigation. These will
be:
      1. IN – MANDATORY
      2. IN – DETECTABLE
      3. IN – PRIMARY INVESTIGATION INCOMPLETE
      4. IN – DISCRETION

Where none of the above applies the crime will be screened OUT.

The effect of this will be that all ‘mandatory’ crimes (reason code 1) will
continue to receive a secondary investigation regardless of detectability. In
addition to this all crimes, which, following the completion of the primary
investigation, are considered to be detectable (reason code 2), will also
receive a secondary investigation. Any decision not to carry out a secondary
investigation into a detectable crime will be the responsibility of the Crime
manager and only then where exceptional circumstances exist. The facility
will also exist to conduct a secondary investigation into a crime that may not
be mandatory or initially detectable but where the circumstances are such that
the CMU Manager decides that a secondary investigation is justified (reason
code 4).

This policy revision will assist in prioritising the deployment of investigative
resources and will help to provide greater public reassurance. The potential
for achieving a higher number of detections will also be realised. Prolific and
priority offenders included in the list of special factors to consider when
deciding whether or not to deploy further resources to a secondary
investigation.


Does the data or consultation indicate that the policy has a different
impact on particular racial groups?

There are no indications or evidence that this policy discriminates against any
particular section of society or fails to promote equality.


If so, which racial groups are affected?

There is no indication that this policy has a different impact on any racial
groups


Is the different impact an adverse one for those racial groups – i.e. does
it put those racial groups at a disadvantage?

No


Is there evidence that this policy:-
    a) Is discriminatory or perceived as discriminatory?
    b) Is damaging good race relations/failing to promote good race
        relations?
    If so, what is the evidence?

There is no evidence that this policy is discriminatory or damaging to race
relations.
If the policy adversely affects people from certain racial groups, can it
be justified because of its overall objectives? Explain in full
• N.B. Direct discrimination is not, in law, capable of justification; only
    indirect discrimination can be objectively justified.

There are no adverse affects of this policy.


What changes, if any, have you made to the policy as a result of the
Race Equality Review?

N/A


State how the on-going effects of this policy will be monitored.
a) How will it be monitored?

A dip sample of CRIS reports will be examined.

b) By whom?

This will initially be done by the TP Crime Policy Unit but may become part of
the regular monitoring of the performance of Borough CMUs by the TP
Performance Review Unit.

c) When?

At least every 12 months and may become part of central monthly monitoring
by the TP Performance Review Unit.