Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Dear Sir/Madam
Enquiry Reference: 699 - 24
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
How many missing children incidents were recorded as high, medium and low risk in each month from March 2021 – March 2022?
2021/22 |
2022/23 |
2023/24 |
|
High |
796 |
984 |
847 |
Low |
99 |
85 |
93 |
Medium |
5156 |
5632 |
5491 |
Total |
6051 |
6701 |
6431 |
Of the high-risk cases, in each month what number of the missing incidents were reported from:
Of those high risk: |
2022/23 |
2023/24 |
Care |
4 |
25 |
Home |
38 |
310 |
Hospital |
2 |
20 |
Other (not specified) |
1 |
28 |
School |
0 |
8 |
Work |
0 |
1 |
* Field was not used in 2021/22. The location field is not always completed.
In what number of incidents was a suicide marker recorded in each month?
Please provide these figures broken down by gender Please provide these figures broken down by risk assessment level
Of those with ‘at risk of suicide’ qualifier |
2021/22 |
2022/23 |
2023/24 |
High |
24 |
58 |
72 |
Low |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Medium |
16 |
31 |
19 |
Total |
40 |
89 |
91 |
In what number of incidents was a self-harm marker recorded in each month?
Please provide these figures broken down by gender Please provide these figures broken down by risk assessment level
What outcomes were recorded in each month at the point of case closure (for example, found safe and well, found deceased, experienced harm, etc.)
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Having made enquiries within the Force due to the nature of our recording systems the information requested, if held, is not in an easily retrievable format. Our information retrieval process generally relies on a computer ran report which captures any information recorded upon the surface of a record. Where relevant information is held deeper in a record a manual assessment is usually required to retrieve that information. In this instance the above question is not held at case management system level therefore to determine such detail would require a manual search through all the records to ascertain this information and this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.
In accordance with Section 16 of the Act we have a duty to provide advice and assistance however on this occasion we cannot offer any suggestion on how you could refine this question. However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act we have provided what information we collated before it was realised that this exceeded the time stipulated.
Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.
The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.
If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request, you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The Freedom of Information Code of Practice (see below link) states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced. Public authorities are not obliged to accept internal reviews after this date.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-code-of-practice
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Decision Maker