Our new research report: Data gaps in criminal justice
Today, we at the Centre for Public Data publish a new report on data gaps in the criminal justice system, the findings from the research we began in August last year.
We find many areas where you’d expect there to be basic public data about the workings of the criminal justice system, but where it is simply missing. This varies from how long people are held on remand, to how different courts sentence for the same crimes.
What we did
We set out last summer to identify major data gaps in criminal justice, which we define as: “areas where a lack of published data makes it hard to answer questions of significant public interest”
Our tireless researcher Gideon compiled hundreds of reports from Select Committees, justice inspectorates and civil society, plus MPs’ written questions. Soon we began to find common themes - MPs and experts asking for the same info over and over again, but being told it “wasn’t held”.
We published all the examples and interim findings openly. Then, we talked to experts to understand how the gaps affected their work. And we used our technical skills to try to understand the underlying data held within the system, to understand which gaps it ought to be possible to fill.
Four critical areas of missing data
We homed in on four key areas, where MPs and stakeholders have consistently asked for better data, and where crucially, we think it’s likely possible to supply it:
Remand and bail. As many organisations have flagged, we don’t have regular data on some important aspects of remand and bail - like the number of people held past the legal time limit for remand. These aren’t just civil liberties issues (and many people on remand and bail are innocent); remand data also helps us see if the public is being kept safe.
Sentencing. Similarly, MPs often ask for data on sentencing and fail to get it, particularly for ‘flagged’ offences, like domestic abuse or hate crime. And while the Government committed to release data on sentencing at individual courts in 2017, it still hasn’t done so.
Court operations. Next, there’s a dearth of data on some basic court operations - especially data that might show us where the system is struggling, or needs more resources. For example, how long crimes like sexual assault, or types of fraud, take to progress through the system at different courts.
Low-level offending. And finally, data on anti-social behaviour and ‘out of court’ offences is patchy. We don’t even have basic info like how much the authorities use their powers to tackle these offences - let alone how well the system works to reduce reoffending.
What next?
To be clear, there are many, many other areas of the criminal justice system where data gaps are a concern. But we’ve highlighted these specific areas because:
MPs and justice experts have consistently said that they need more information.
We think the gaps are fixable, with just a little technical effort, because the underlying data is already recorded - we don’t need expensive new surveys or data collection.
It’s important to say too that these gaps have real implications - they aren’t academic. A lack of data often means people’s experiences aren’t recorded, institutions aren’t held accountable, and ultimately the criminal justice system doesn’t work for everyone.
And programmes like the Ministry of Justice’s Data First - which give approved researchers access to extra data - are useful in their own way, but don’t solve this problem. The access to data is too slow, too limited, and too approval-based to provide the public scrutiny that MPs and others consistently ask for.
So now, we think the Government has a duty to act. The Ministry of Justice are official statistics publishers. They have to follow an official code of practice. Under this code, they’re obliged to make their statistics relevant and to consider whether to fill ‘identified information gaps’.
It's time for them to start doing so.
——————————————————————-
Our full report has all the findings and recommendations. You can download the full report here (PDF).
Thanks to the many, many criminal justice experts who spoke to us in the course of this research - too many to name without a very long post, but they are listed in the report. We are very grateful for your help.
This research funded by the Justice Lab, an initiative of the Legal Education Foundation, as part of their ongoing programme of research and advocacy to improve the quality and availability of justice system data. We are very grateful for their support.
We will be grateful to receive comments and corrections to the research. If you’re interested in this or any of our other work, please get in touch.