Memorandum submitted by the Criminal Records
Bureau
Given that much of the field work for the NAO's
inquiry into the setting up of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)
was undertaken some 8 months ago, I thought it would be helpful
to provide the Committee with an update on some of key factual
material in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report and to
draw the Committee's attention to a number of recent developments.
Below is a memorandum to this end. My colleagues from the CRB
and Capita, who have agreed the contents of this letter, and I
would be pleased to elaborate on any of the issues raised at the
hearing on 15 March.
Leigh Lewis CB
Permanent Secretary
Home Office
9 March 2004
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
As is acknowledged in the NAO Report, since
September 2002 the performance of the CRB has been greatly improved.
Since June 2003, it has exceeded its service standard of issuing
90% of Standard and Enhanced Disclosures within 2 and 4 weeks
respectively and the backlog of applications outstanding for over
6 weeks has been eliminated. It is now processing around 50,000
Disclosure applications per week, over twice as many as under
the previous system.
In general the data in the NAO Report in respect
of the CRB's operational performance records the position up to
the end of June or July 2003. The tables below updates the various
tables and charts to the end of February 2004.
Disclosures issued (Figure 5)
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF DISCLOSURES ISSUED BY
THE BUREAU JULY 2003 TO FEBRUARY 2004
| July 2003 | August 2003
| Sept 2003 | Oct 2003
| Nov 2003 | Dec 2003
| Jan 2004 | Feb 2004
|
| 2,162,000 | 2,326,277 | 2,482,000
| 2,732,000 | 2,921,000 | 3,095,000
| 3,284,000 | 3,488,000 |
| | |
| | | |
|
APPLICATIONS AND DISCLOSURES BY MONTH JUNE 2003 TO FEBRUARY
2004 (FIGURE 8)
| June 2003 | July 2003
| Aug 2003 | Sept 2003
| Oct 2003 | Nov 2003
| Dec 2003 | Jan 2004
| Feb 2004 |
| Applications accepted | 203,000
| 227,000 | 144,000 | 171,000
| 226,000 | 201,000 | 165,000
| 168,000 | 217,000 |
| Disclosures issued | 189,000 |
243,000 | 146,000 | 156,000
| 251,000 | 218,000 | 141,000
| 177,000 | 204,000 |
| Work in progress | 98,000 |
92,000 | 95,000 | 103,000
| 94,000 | 83,000 | 103,000
| 89,000 | 105,000 |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
Note: The current work in progress represents less
than 3 weeks work.
PERFORMANCE AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE STANDARDS FOR ISSUE
OF DISCLOSURES JUNE 2003 TO FEBRUARY 2004 (FIGURE 10)
| June 2003 | July 2003
| Aug 2003 | Sept 2003
| Oct 2003 | Nov 2003
| Dec 2003 | Jan 2004
| Feb 2004 |
| Standard Disclosures | 92.5 |
91.8 | 88.6 | 90.8
| 95.2 | 93.9 | 92.7
| 88.6 | 95.2 |
| Enhanced Disclosures | 92.5 |
92.2 | 91.3 | 91.7
| 92.9 | 93.5 | 93.9
| 93.2 | 92.9 |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
Note: The service standard for 2003-04 is 90% of Enhanced
and Standard Disclosures to be issued within four and two weeks
respectively.
PERFORMANCE AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICE STANDARDS FOR 2003-04
(FIGURE 14)
| Target 2003-04 |
Performance for year to end
February 2004
|
| Disclosure turnaround times:
|
| Enhanced | 90% in 4 weeks |
92.1 |
| Standard | 90% in 2 weeks |
92.7 |
| Registration of Registered Bodies | 90% in 4 weeks
| 36.6 |
| Correspondence response times for:
|
| Written | 2 weeks | 94.9
|
| Email | 24 hours | 96.1
|
| Response to disputes over content of Disclosure
| 3 weeks | 98.9 |
| Percentage of calls answered within 20 seconds
| 90% | 89.2 |
| |
|
Aged cases over 6 weeks old
The table below shows the number of aged cases over 6 weeks
old (and not awaiting information from the applicant) by Month
from January 2003 to February 2004.
| Month | Number of aged cases over 6 weeks
|
| January 2003 | 53,754 |
| February | 33,651 |
| March | 22,499 |
| April | 16,308 |
| May | 9,348 |
| June | 5,264 |
| July | 2,737 |
| August | 2,303 |
| September | 1,486 |
| October | 1,234 |
| November | 937 |
| December | 923 |
| January 2004 | 987 |
| February | 1,561 |
| |
IMPROVEMENTS TO
SERVICE
Service standard for 2004-05
Following the sustained improvement in the CRB's performance
over the past year, it is proposed to improve on the current public
service standards for the year beginning 1 April 2004. For 2004-05,
the service standards for Disclosure turnaround times will be
as follows:
— Standard Disclosures—92% within 14 days
— Enhanced Disclosures—90% within 25 days
The reduction in the turnaround target for Enhanced Disclosures
from 28 to 25 days represents a 10% service improvement.
Checks on care staff
At paragraph 4.6 of the Report, the NAO referred to the decision
announced on 4 November 2002 (Hansard col. 102W-104W) to postpone
certain mandatory checks on care staff in order to ensure that
the demand for disclosures did not exceed the CRB's then capacity
to meet such demand. Following the significant improvement in
the Bureau's performance, the Department of Health announced,
in September 2003, a timetable for the introduction of checks
on care staff as follows:
— From 1 October 2003 new agency domiciliary care
workers and agency nurses would require a CRB check before they
could take up their placement.
— Existing care home staff and domiciliary agency
staff would require a CRB check by 31 October 2004, with applications
being submitted from 1 October 2003.
— Checks on existing nurses agency staff would commence
once significant progress had been made on processing the estimated
250,000 Disclosure applications from existing care home and domiciliary
agency staff.
Between 1 October 2003 and 29 February 2004 113,000 applications
have been received from existing care home and domiciliary agency
staff. Of these, 104,000 have been loaded onto the CRB's CRM system
and 85,000 (75%) have been issued with a Disclosure.
Protection of Vulnerable Adults list (paragraph 4.7)
The Department of Health announced, on 11 December 2003,
proposals to introduce the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA)
List from June 2004. The proposals are subject to consultation;
the consultation period closed on 4 March. The consultation paper
noted that:
"The Government intends to implement the POVA scheme
from June 2004 in England and Wales. It will be commenced in the
social care sector in the first instance. This approach is sensible,
as there is strong evidence that most abuse of vulnerable adults
occurs either in their own homes or in care homes. Several important
issues need to be addressed in the NHS and independent health
care sectors before POVA can be successfully extended into those
sectors. However, this extension will follow as soon as is practically
possible."
Results of November 2003 customer satisfaction survey
Research conducted by MORI in November 2003 on behalf of
the CRB found increased levels of satisfaction with the CRB. 70%
of Registered Bodies said they were satisfied with the overall
service they received from the CRB; this compares with a satisfaction
rating of 50% in March 2003. 66% also said that the service had
improved since they first started using the CRB (65% in March
2003).
POLICE DATA
Following the conviction of Ian Huntley for the murders of
Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, the Home Secretary announced
(Hansard 18 December 2003, col. 150WS-151WS) the setting up of
an independent inquiry, headed by Sir Michael Bichard, with the
following terms of reference:
"Urgently to enquire into child protection procedures
in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary in the light
of the recent trial and conviction of Ian Huntley for the murder
of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. In particular to assess the
effectiveness of the relevant intelligence-based record keeping,
the vetting practises in those forces since 1995 and information
sharing with other agencies, and to report to the Home Secretary
on matters of local and national relevance and make recommendations
as appropriate."
In response to an invitation from Sir Michael, the Home Office
and CRB have submitted written evidence to the Inquiry. The Inquiry
published these and a number of other written submissions on their
website (www.bichardinquiry.org.uk) on 16 February.
Paragraphs 107 to 117 of the Home Office evidence to the
Inquiry addresses the measures the Government is taking to improve
substantially the timeliness with which conviction data is recorded
on the Police National Computer (an issue raised in paragraph
2.16 of the NAO Report).
DISCLOSURE FEES
AND THE
CRB'S FINANCIAL
POSITION
Disclosure fees for 2004-05
As reported by the NAO in paragraph 21 of the Executive Summary,
the Government has announced (Hansard 1 December 2003, col. 51WS-52WS)
that, with effect from 1 April 2004, the fees for an Enhanced
and Standard Disclosure will be £33 and £28 respectively.
CRB forecast operating deficit 2003-04 and 2004-05 (Figure
13)
The final audited operating deficit for 2002-03 was £39.6
million. Following the renegotiation of the contract with Capita,
which included agreement to pay Capita £3.6 million in final
settlement of the contract change which provided for the introduction
of the blank application form, the forecast operating deficit
for 2003-04 has been revised to £22.8 million. The forecast
operating deficit for 2004-05 remains at £8.1 million. The
CRB remains on course to achieve full cost recovery from 2005-06.
Payments by Capita
Paragraph 4.17 of the Report identified liquidated damages
and service credits paid by Capita to the CRB. The total amount
paid to date (as at end of January 2004) is as follows:
— £555,000 Liquidated Damages for the delay
of the development programme;
— £47,500 Liquidated Damages for functionality
relating to the National Identification Service 2002-03;
— £87,500 Liquidated Damages for the delay
of the web-based application channel 2002-03; and
— £3,357,000 Service Credits up to 31 January
2004.
Payments to Capita
Paragraph 4.18 of the Report identified the main payments
made by the CRB to Capita under normal contract change procedures
for changes and enhancements to the contracted service. Since
August 2000, when the contract was signed, the following payments
have been made:
| 2000-01 | £31,000 |
| 2001-02 | £10,559,000 |
| 2002-03 | £4,085,000 |
| 2003-04 (to 31 January 2004) | £4,261,000
|
| |
In addition to the items mentioned in paragraph 4.18 of the
Report, these payments include:
— £3.5m in 2002-03 for establishment of disaster
recovery site in Darwen.
— £3.6m in 2003-04 in final settlement of the
contract change which provided for the introduction of the blank
application form.
Paragraph 4.19 of the Report identified the payments to Capita
up to January 2003 for their work associated with processing Disclosure
applications and for accommodation and other ancillary charges.
The payments made in each financial year are as follows:
| 2000-01 | £981,000 |
| 2001-02 | £12,118,000 |
| 2002-03 | £33,524,000 |
| 2003-04 (to 31 January 2004, including advance payment for Q4)
|
£47,470,000 |
| |
STRUCTURE OF
THE BUREAU
AND GOVERNANCE
ARRANGEMENTS
CRB Management Structure
A new Management Structure within the Bureau has been established
under the new Chief Executive. This consists of 4 Directors with
clearly defined responsibilities and accountabilities. A copy
of the new Management Structure is attached at Annex A.
The responsibilities of the Agency and Capita within the
overall CRB structure are now as follows.
The Agency is responsible for:
— handling more sensitive enquiries, including PNC
matching;
— dealing with cases that throw up policy issues;
— handling sensitive information; and
— managing the Registered Body and police interface;
and
— monitoring the overall service.
Capita is responsible for:
— delivering and managing the technical solution;
— running the call centre;
— receiving and processing applications; and
— printing and dispatching the Disclosure document.
New Governance Arrangements
The new, revised Governance arrangements for the CRB are
at Annex B attached. The main differences compared with the previous
arrangements are as follows:
— The introduction of a new Standards Committee,
as a sub-committee of the main Management Board, focusing on the
overall quality and accuracy of the Disclosure Service. Its terms
of reference are at Annex C. It is chaired by one of the non-Executives
of the Management Board, John Holden, who was also a member of
the Independent Review Team appointed by the Home Secretary.
— A Management Board chaired by the Agency Chief
Executive. Its membership consists of each of the Bureau's four
Directors together with two non-Executive Directors and a Senior
Representative from Capita and the Home Office. It meets monthly
to review the overall performance and development of the Agency.
— An Executive Team, chaired by the Agency Chief
Executive and consisting of each of the Bureau's four Directors
and the Senior Capita person responsible for their involvement
within the CRB. Its purpose is to oversee all aspects of the Agency's
performance and development on a day-to-day basis.
— New Governance arrangements beneath the Executive
Team to oversee the various functional areas within the Agency
and the day-to-day operation of the Bureau. It also includes new
Governance arrangements to ensure the continued development of
the partnership between the Bureau and Capita.
Capita's involvement in the Agency
The revised Governance arrangements set out above are now
in place and now involve Capita at each of the main decision-making
bodies within the Agency. Capita are also now represented on the
inter-departmental Major Stakeholder Group. This now allows Capita
greater involvement in the day-to-day and strategic decision-making
within the Agency. It also allows them to input more strongly
into inter-departmental and customer stakeholder groups and to
bring their expertise to ensure full awareness of the operational
impact of decision-making.
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE CRB STANDARDS COMMITTEE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the proposed Standards Committee is to provide
assurance, through all stages of the CRB process from initial
application through interrogation of the criminal records and
police intelligence to issue of robust Disclosures, that quality
and integrity in service provision is to the very highest standards
possible consistent with value.
In that respect, it is intended to perform a parallel role
to that of the Audit Committee. It is recognises that, just as
the Audit Committee is expected to provide a bulwark against financial
and related risks and to institutionalise good practise, the Standards
Committee is intended to provide similar defences and reassurance
against incorrect or inadequate disclosures.
A key reputational risk facing the Agency is of failure to:
— Identify correctly the records and intelligence
relating to a particular application, such that an unsuitable
applicant gains inappropriate employment, creating the potential
for or actually leading to abuse and scandal.
— Manage the initial application appropriately,
with the result hat a "clean" disclosure is given to
someone not meriting it, because their true identity is hidden,
with correspondingly unacceptable consequences.
— Manage the in-house process properly, with the
result that the correct linkages between applicant, their "footprint"
in society and their criminal records/intelligence, are not made,
with similar potential for "false positives" or "false
negatives" and adverse consequences for customer service
and the objectives for which the Agency was created.
— Prevent deliberate subversion of the process by
those so-minded, through forgery or conspiracy or similar methods,
with the intention of providing "clean" disclosures
for those who should not have them.
The primary objective of the Standards Committee is to mitigate
this risk by encouraging good process control, using management
information, audit methodology and risk management techniques
to establish standards and effect improvements in meeting those
standards. In doing so, a subsidiary objective—to improve
the quality of the customer experience in the areas of disclosure
integrity and thus perceived value—should be addressed.
MEMBERSHIP
Membership may be varied to accommodate evolving needs, but
should include:
— The CRB's Operations Director, John O'Brien, as
senior line manager responsible for the end-to-end process.
— An independent Non-executive Board Member, initially
John Holden, who will also initially chair the Committee.
— A representative from the police, nominated by
ACPO.
— A representative from the Registered Body community,
preferably a member of the CRB consultative panel, to be agreed
by that group.
— A Home Office-nominated policy representative,
initially Bob Wright.
In addition, attendees may be sought as follows:
— A representative from Capita.
— A CRB manager with particular responsibilities
for Registered Body liaison, standards and training.
— A second representative from the Registered Body
community, recognising the different needs and capacities of larger
and smaller Registered Bodies.
— A CRB manager with particular responsibilities
for management information.
— A committee secretary from CRB.
— Other individuals whose particular expertise or
contribution is sought by the Committee.
The Accounting Officer may also attend and may (in consultation
with others as appropriate) review membership or the continuing
relevance of the Committee at any time. Alternatives are allowed
but discouraged. The Committee is quorate with the attendance
of either the Operations Director (as alternate chair of the Committee)
or the Non-executive member and one other, plus Committee secretary
(who may be co-opted for that purpose).
MEETINGS
The Standards Committee should meet at least four times a
year at broadly quarterly intervals, once fully established. In
the first quarter of 2004, it is anticipated that monthly meetings
will be necessary to put the work of the Committee onto a proper
footing. Meetings can be convened at any time with appropriate
notice, ordinarily 10 working days, but every effort will be made
to establish diary dates as far forward as possible.
REPORTING
The Standards Committee will report to the Accounting Officer
of the Agency and through him to Ministers and Permanent Secretaries.
Access to the Committee
The objective of the Committee is to bear down on poor or
inadequate practise or abuse in the disclosure process and to
see the rigorous processes and best practise substituted. It follows
that the Committee Chairman must encourage and provide a secure
environment for anyone with evidence of where the process is not
working as it should to come forward and share that information
without fear for their personal or career well-being.
RESPONSIBILITIES
The Standards Committee will:
— Establish a strategic overview of the requirements
for good Disclosure standards.
— Ensure that the end-to-end disclosure processes
are reviewed from the perspective of the key risk (as set out
above) which the Committee has been established to address.
— Establish, through the appropriate line management
channels, management information which can help identify the areas
of weakness. This should include quantitative measurement of disputes
and their causes, "wrong" disclosures and their reasons,
accuracy of input work by applicants and RB's, quality of compliance
with standards by RB's , comprehensiveness, consistency, accuracy
and timeliness of recording of criminal records and police intelligence,
and errors in internal processes and in issue of disclosures.
— Establish, through the Registered Body network,
the effectiveness of disclosures in influencing decision taking
over appointments to sensitive employment positions.
— Commission a review of the major risk areas within
the overall key risk being addressed and the maintenance of a
"top ten" risk register with action programme to manage
these risks.
— Provide an annual "audit" report on
the work undertaken and level and areas of remaining risk identified,
for Accounting Officer and Home Office assurance purposes.
|
