Feeds

Home Office mum over mad March at the CRB

A secret criminal record of errors

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

The work of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is undoubtedly important and often contentious.

So when on Monday this week it emerged that the error rate at the CRB had multiplied by a factor of 2.3 from a total of 680 in 2007/8 to 1,570 in 2008/9, it warranted further investigation.

Those error totals include false positives (people blocked from positions who should not have been) and false negatives (people allowed to take up positions they should not have been).

The Home Office issued an interesting statement alongside the figures. It said: "For the first 11 months of 2008-09 the CRB's accuracy rate exceeded the previous years. However, a dip in the quality in the final month brought down the overall figure."

Apparently intended to cast the 2008/9 figures in a positive light, with some rough calculations the statement in fact suggested a worryingly sudden collapse in the CRB's performance.

In 2007/8 the CRB ran 3.4 million background checks. In 2008 it ran 3.9 million, an increase by a factor of about 1.15. The 2.3 times increase in the number errors therefore couldn't be a simple function of more checks passing through CRB systems.

According to the Home Office statement, the proportion of errors from April 2008 through February 2009 was actually better than the overall rate for the previous year, which was 0.02 per cent.

So, at the end of those 11 months, assuming a constant number* of checks per month, there were fewer than 715 errors.

But by the end of March there had been 1,570, so there were at least 855 errors in one month. That compares to an average of fewer than 65 per month for the preceding 11 months.

For monthly error count to explode by order of magnitude, surely something must have gone drastically wrong.

We asked the Home Office press office for details. Perhaps there had been a technical glitch, new software, new staff or processes? Whatever the cause of the CRB's disastrous month, surely it was in the public interest to disclose it, and what has been done to ensure this "dip" is not repeated?

Apparently not.

After we sent him our sums, a spokesman said: "Not one single factor can be attributed to this dip in the quality in the final month.

"Disclosure quality and accuracy is heavily reliant on the information supplied by the individual and is subject to fluctuations."

The implicit suggestion of his second sentence - that in one month more than 10 times more CRB check applications than normal contained dodgy identity data - is simply not credible.

But he also said not one single factor caused the "dip". Fair enough. So what were the factors? The Home Office refused to provide this information, while admitting its answers were "not helpful" and pointing out that it is possible to appeal against a CRB decision, if a complaint is lodged within 21 days.

Our attempts to extract an answer as to what went wrong at the CRB in March over the course of several telephone conversations on Monday and Tuesday were consistently and aggressively refused.

As a final effort to uncover why the CRB got it so wrong all of a sudden, we'll try a Freedom of Information Act request. In the meantime and possibly forever - assuming the Home Office really doesn't want anyone to know - the lesson of this story appears to be: Don't apply for a job in March. ®

*A reasonable assumption for these purposes. The Home Office told us there were 370,000 checks in March 2008, only slightly above the monthly mean for the year of 325,000.

Intelligent flash storage arrays

More from The Register

next story
Scrapping the Human Rights Act: What about privacy and freedom of expression?
Justice minister's attack to destroy ability to challenge state
WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
Tabloid splashes, MP resigns - but there's a BIG copyright issue here
DVLA website GOES TITSUP on day paper car tax discs retire
Welcome to GOV.UK - digital by de ... FAULT
Hey Brit taxpayers. You just spent £4m on Central London ‘innovation playground’
Catapult me a Mojito, I feel an Digital Innovation coming on
Google hits back at 'Dear Rupert' over search dominance claims
Choc Factory sniffs: 'We're not pirate-lovers - also, you publish The Sun'
EU to accuse Ireland of giving Apple an overly peachy tax deal – report
Probe expected to say single-digit rate was unlawful
Inequality increasing? BOLLOCKS! You heard me: 'Screw the 1%'
There's morality and then there's economics ...
While you queued for an iPhone 6, Apple's Cook sold shares worth $35m
Right before the stock took a 3.8% dive amid bent and broken mobe drama
EU probes Google’s Android omerta again: Talk now, or else
Spill those Android secrets, or we’ll fine you
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.