Docstoc

Report - Hampshire Police Authority

Document Sample
Report - Hampshire Police Authority Powered By Docstoc
					                     - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -



Hampshire Police Authority

Performance Committee                                  Item: 6

26 April 2010

Road Traffic Collisions – Injury Statistics 2005 – 2009

Report of the Chief Constable


Contact:     T/C/Supt Chris Brown, 8 OCU
             0845 045 45 45 ext 3263

1.    Purpose

1.1   This paper is submitted at the request of the HPA Performance
      Committee to outline variance between recorded and reported injury
      Road Traffic Collision (RTC) statistics, and the potential impact on
      performance targets.

2.    Summary

2.1   This report supports the Protecting our Communities strand of the
      Policing Priorities.

2.2   The report outlines the discovery of RTC data reporting issues, the
      remedial action that has been taken, the differences in statistics and
      proposes a course of action.

2.3   Appendix 1 – Spreadsheet showing original and amended RTC
      statistics for 2005-2009.

3.    Recommendations

3.1   That the Performance Committee note the report and actions in place
      to resolve any performance issues regarding RTC statistics.

4.    Background

4.1   Under Road Traffic legislation, there are legal requirements for drivers
      to report injury accidents to police. Up until March 2005, RTCs were
      recorded on a paper system. From April 2005 all subsequent suitable
      RTCs were recorded on RMS.

4.2   A self- initiated audit in September 2009, following national guidance,
      showed that there had been under reporting of serious and slight injury

                     - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -                                 1
                     - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -


      accidents. This occurred due to a change of ownership of reporting
      RTC data occurring between two Roads Policing units . An RMS search
      and associated procedure for RTCs was not clearly handed over, nor
      was refined enough to identify all RTCs. On identification of the issue
      remedial action was taken to improve the RMS search, widening the
      date field and other search parameters, and then further work was put
      in place to review all recorded injury accidents from April 2005 to
      September 2009, to identify the gap between RTCs recorded on RMS
      and those reported on for performance purposes. The decision was
      made to go back to all of the period on RMS to ensure the most
      accurate data was held. This has involved staff from RPU IMU Records
      reviewing over 2000 individual RTC records.

4.3   The resulting analysis (shown in detail at Appendix 1) shows that 2008
      and 2009 have had the main disparities, with a 6.1% difference in Killed
      or Seriously Injured (KSI) RTCs in 2009, and 4.2% for 2008. The other
      years have had very minor discrepancies, e.g. 2006 and 2007 show an
      increase of 0.2%. There are no inaccuracies in the number of fatal
      collisions recorded for 2005 and 2009.

4.4   One target that this could affect is the Road Casualty Reduction (RCR)
      target. This is a national ten year target set for KSIs, based on baseline
      data from 1994-98. Only the discrepancies in the 2008 and 2009 data
      have meant that the RCR 2010 target for those years has not been
      met. These are yearly ‘step-down’ targets set internally to measure a
      gradual decrease in KSIs, as the key RCR 2010 target is to achieve
      862 KSIs in 2010. The targets are designed as a guide to show a
      simple gradient for reduction of KSIs from the start point in 2000 to the
      end point in 2010.The target for 2009 was 902 KSIs for the calendar
      year and the actual number of injury accidents was 917. For 2008 it
      rises from 879 to 916. With the error not being discovered until
      September 2009, the calendar year target had been showing
      performance as either on or under target, and in consequence came
      too late in the year to take any further actions to reduce KSI numbers.

4.5   Casualty Reduction targets were also set as part of the Local Public
      Service Agreement (LPSA). LPSA targets could have been affected by
      the increase in recorded RTC data. Potentially the impact could be that
      payments made to police and partners for achieving LPSA casualty
      reduction targets may have had to be repaid. For Hampshire County
      this appears not the case for LPSA1, as the target set was to be
      achieved in a four year period (2005 -2008 inc), and the remedial work
      has shown that, despite an increase in figures for 2008, the target was
      still achieved. Further work is now underway to refine figures for the
      Unitary authorities and any LPSA2 targets.

4.6   For the RCR 2020 targets, which are required to be set in 2010 for the
      following decade, accurate KSI data is now held on which to set those
      targets. This has resulted in a minimal change of an increase in five
      KSIs.
                     - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -                               2
                       - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -



5.      Resources

5.1     The remedial work and management of this issue has been actioned
        within 8 OCU without affecting other areas of business

6.      Consultation

6.1     The Department for Transport (DfT) have been informally consulted
        about the change in recorded RTCs. The view has been that they will
        not be amending or correcting any previously submitted statistics.
        Having now obtained the full levels of discrepancies, the DfT will be
        formally approached for their view on this matter.

7.      Significant Risks

7.1     The main risk is the non-achievement of the RCR 2010 target of 862
        KSIs, as the presumption with the incorrect data being reported was
        that casualty reduction activity over 2008/9 was successful, as the
        target reductions appeared to have been met. Significant work has
        taken place from 2000 onwards to reduce KSIs which has been
        successful. Further work with the Safer Roads Partnership is ongoing
        to target key areas and hotspots to reduce casualties. Evidence of this
        is the BikeSafe scheme – in 2008 there were 25 fatal accidents
        involving motorcyclists. Targeted work was undertaken, mixing
        enforcement with education, and 2009 saw only 9 such fatal RTCs.
        Ongoing partnership working can continue to reduce casualties.

7.2     Roads Policing Unit casualty reduction tasking and coordinating group
        (TCG) meetings are being put in place, and the KSI performance will
        be monitored through the 8 OCU and Force performance meetings.

8.      Other implications:

8.1

      AUTHORITY AREA            IMPLICATION

      Statutory Duty/Good       Nil
      Practice

      Equality, Diversity and   Nil
      Human Rights

      Vulnerable People and     Nil
      Every Child Matters

      Environmental Impact      Nil

                       - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -                                3
                      - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -


    AUTHORITY AREA             IMPLICATION

    Trust and Confidence       Inaccuracies in data recording can have a negative
                               effect on perception of the police. In this case once the
                               problem has been identified, remedial action has been
                               taken to ensure correct and accurate data is held by the
                               Constabulary.

    Partnership and            The Safer Roads Partnership Chair and Manager have
    Collaboration              been informed, and DfT will now formally be informed.
                               The issue could affect LPSA and LPSA2 casualty
                               reduction targets.

    Strategic Documents        Nil




Section 100D (Local Government Act 1972) background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an
important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in
the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:
1. published works; and,
2. documents that disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in
   the Act.

Title                    Location
None                     None




                      - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -                                 4
                                                - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -




Appendix 1

Hampshire and IOW Injury RTC/KSI data 2005-2009


           Old                                                     New
                                               Serious   Slight            New     New      New     % diff   % diff    % diff   % diff
  Year    total   Old KSI   Serious   Slight                       total
                                                added    added             KSI   serious   slight   total     KSI     serious   slight
         injury                                                   injury
  2009    5733     864       823      4869       53       186     5972     917    876      5055     4.2%     6.1%      6.4%     3.8%
  2008    6172     879       810      5293       37       217     6426     916    847      5510     4.1%     4.2%      4.6%     4.1%
  2007    7034     949       856      6085        6        68     7108     955    862      6153     1.1%     0.6%      0.7%     1.1%
  2006    7053     865       793      6188        0        14     7067     865    793      6202     0.2%     0.0%      0.0%     0.2%
  2005    7387     899       809      6488        2        16     7405     901    811      6504     0.2%     0.2%      0.2%     0.2%




                                                - NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -                                                      5

				
DOCUMENT INFO