Quality Service Review – technical methodology

This is the methodology for our 2025-2027 cycle of police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) inspections. We continuously adapt our approach and we publish a framework for each cycle of inspections. 

Background

From 2023 we inspected police forces as part of the Victim Service Assessment (VSA), to audit the level of service provided to victims of crime. This was carried out within the crime file review and crime data integrity (CDI) audits, which audited five stages of the service:

1. Call handling.

2. Deployment and response.

3. Crime recording.

4. Investigations.

5. Outcomes.

All police forces were subject to a VSA within our PEEL inspection programme, comprising stages: 1, 2, 4 and 5. Some police forces were also tested on crime recording (stage 3) through the CDI methodology. All our VSAs resulted in a description of the victim service assessment within a force’s PEEL inspection report and findings from the VSA were considered in other questions. If inspected, police forces were given a graded judgment for CDI.

Quality Service Review

All forces will be subject to a Quality of Service Review (QSR). Our assessment will expand from the VSA to now assess the quality of service provided to the public. We will assess the service provided in five stages:

1. Call handling.

2. Deployment and response.

3. Crime recording.

4. Investigations.

5. Outcomes.

All forces will be audited in all five stages within our inspection program. Forces will also be audited in two additional areas:

1. Safeguarding.

2. Antisocial behaviour.

Case file review

To assess stages 1, 2, 4 and 5 we will review ten recorded crime files, for each of the following offences:

• assaults;

• retail crime;

• stalking and harassment;

• rape;

• other sexual offences;

• burglary;

• other neighbourhood crimes; and

• domestic abuse related offences.

In addition, we will review 15 fraud related calls and 15 fraud investigations that may or may not be connected to those calls. We will also audit 15 recorded crime files that were assigned a specific crime outcome[1]. This crime outcome will be chosen based on a risk assessment. In total we will review 100 crime files. This will allow us to follow and assess an incident from initial contact, through to the investigation stage and the application of a Home Office approved crime outcome (if applicable). When there are an insufficient number of records within the random sample to select these 100 files, we will choose the remaining files from the next available incidents within our sampling frame that match the requirements needed. We will randomly select the crime files from the force’s crime records for the three-month period ending one complete calendar month prior to the commencement of the audit.

Safeguarding

Auditors will also examine 60 cases, focusing on how well the force safeguards victims:

• 10 stalking cases

• 20 domestic abuse cases (10 of which involve children)

• 10 rape cases (5 adult and 5 child victims), and

• 20 missing from home cases (10 adults and 10 children).

Antisocial behaviour

Auditors will examine 20 antisocial behaviour personal cases, focusing on prevention and deterrence.

Audit quality and validation – case file review

All case file review auditors have been accredited to professionalising investigations programme (PIP) level 2/3 and be an experienced senior investigating officer. They are required to attend a HMICFRS in-house course which teaches auditing techniques used in the case file review element of the programme. Instruction is provided by HMICFRS’s case file review specialists and subject matter experts. The auditors carrying out the safeguarding audits will have experience of working within safeguarding units as a senior investigating officer. The fraud auditor will be a specialist fraud investigator. The auditors for the antisocial behaviour audits will be specialist neighbourhood crime officers. Forces can review audit decisions through a structured resolution process. We aim to resolve any issues with the force in the first instance, but if no agreement can be reached, then the matter will be passed to the case file review audit coordinator at HMICFRS for consideration. The ultimate decision on reconciliation of any disputed cases will rest with HMICFRS’s senior reporting officer for the inspection.

[1] From the following subset of police recorded crime outcomes: (2) Caution – youths, (3) Caution – adults, (8) Community Resolution, (10) Not in public interest (police decision), (14) Evidential difficulties: suspect not identified; victim does not support further action, (15) Evidential difficulties: suspect identified; victim supports action, (16) Evidential difficulties: suspect identified; victim does not support further action, (17) Prosecution time limit expired, (18) Investigation complete – no suspect identified, (21) Further investigation to support formal action not in the public interest (police decision), (22) Diversionary, educational or intervention activity, resulting from the crime report, has been undertaken and it is not in the public interest to take any further action.

Crime recording

We will randomly select dip-samples using the same three-month period. The areas of dip-sample will be:

• Antisocial behaviour (ASB): 60 incidents opened as ASB personal (ASB P).

• Domestic abuse: 50 incidents opened as a domestic abuse incident or domestic crime, or an incident flagged as domestic abuse. The numbers of each type of domestic incident selected for the sample will match the proportion of each incident type submitted by the force.

• Vulnerable victims: 50 samples of referrals made by partner agencies to vulnerable victim departments.

• N100s: 50 reported incidents of rape. The numbers of each type of N100 (N100/1, N100/2, N100/3) selected for the sample will match the proportion of each N100 type submitted by the force.

In addition, we will take a dip sample of cancelled rape crime decisions going back no more than 12 months: 10 C2 rape crime cancellations and 10 C4 rape crime cancellations. These will be selected consecutively, not a randomly selected set of samples.

Audit quality and validation – crime recording

The quality of audit decisions depends on the knowledge, experience, and skills of the auditors. All auditors will be required to attend a HMICFRS in-house course which will teach auditors the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) and auditing techniques used in the CDI programme. It will be overseen by the national crime registrar. Instruction will be provided by HMICFRS’s crime data specialist who has passed the College of Policing force crime registrars’ (FCR) accreditation course. Forces will have the opportunity to review the audit decisions. We aim to resolve any issues with the force in the first instance, but if no agreement can be reached, then the matter will be passed to the national crime recording standards expert at HMICFRS for consideration in consultation with the national crime registrar. The ultimate decision on reconciliation of any disputed cases will rest with HMICFRS’s senior reporting officer for the inspection.

Reporting

The QSR will not have its own graded judgement or report section. The resultsThis is the methodology for our 2025-2027 cycle of police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) inspections. We continuously adapt our approach and we publish a framework for each cycle of inspections. 

Additional crime data integrity audits

If we consider that a force may not be recording crime to an acceptable standard, then we may carry out a full CDI audit of the force to understand how well crime is being recorded. This will follow the same CDI audit methodology we have used in our 2021/2022 and 2023-2025 Victim Service Assessment audits. We will produce a statistically significant estimate of the force’s crime-recording accuracy for those forces. Read the full CDI audit methodology.

https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publication-html/quality-service-review-technical-methodology-2025/