Agenda and minutes

1.    The Chairman raised a matter arising relating to a question from the last meeting regarding the applications by the Commissioner to the Police Innovation Fund to support purchasing new technological equipment.  The Commissioner stated that the matter was still being explored and that a more detailed update with the outcome could be provided at a later date.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 24th of July 2014 be approved as a correct record and that they be signed by the Chairman.

1.    The Commissioner provided a detailed overview of the Victim Services paper, explaining that the various elements were all too important to be summarised.

2.    The Commissioner explained that presently, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) commissions a 'one-size-fits all' service from the national charity Victim Support.  As of October 2014, funding and the responsibility for commissioning victim services will be devolved to Police and Crime Commissioners though the current contract with Victim Support does not expire until March 31st 2015.

3.    In August 2014, the Commissioner decided to utilise the Old Court Building in Ashford for the Victims’ Centre, with this decision based on a scoping of the options. The concept of a Victims’ Centre had been developed by partner agencies through a multi-agency design event which was sponsored by the Commissioner. This work was also   importantly, influenced by discussions with victims to ensure that their views and experiences could be kept at the heart of developments.

4.    Some important gaps in the victim support processes that were identified through this event included lack of focus on the victim as an individual, no shared standards across agencies, poor data sharing, too much emphasis on the offender for managing trigger points, no central point of contact for victims and no efficient database or management system.

5.    This process has been guided by a needs assessment provided by Portsmouth University which closely examined victim experiences and current service provision.

6.    The Commissioner stated that she welcomed the devolution of commissioning victim services to PCC’s as it presented a 'once in a lifetime opportunity' for better local control and tailoring of services.

7.    Some key issues raised by the report included the need for SPOCs as victims did not want to have to speak to numerous agencies and people.

8.    The Commissioner stressed that it was understood that the needs of the victim must always come before the needs of service.

9.    The Commissioner explained that the programme for developing the new model is taking place in two phases.  Phase one is the transition of control from the MoJ to the Commissioner and will include initial commissioning of Victim Support, the current contract holder, for a further year starting in April 2015.  This will allow continuity of service as well as the opportunity to adapt their existing services to more appropriate locally tailored delivery.  A key improvement early on will be the co-locating of victim services with Kent Police's own Witness Care unit in the new Ashford site.

10. While the existing provider will continue to provide services, this allows enough time for all the relevant partner agencies to work together to agree the best system for long term victim care in Kent, identifying appropriate specialist services for commissioning and to understand the complexities of how the various agencies interact and where this may create gaps.

11. The refurbishment of the Ashford site will be funded by through the funds provided by the Ministry of Justice. This refurbishment will ensure the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

1.    The Commissioner introduced the paper outlining the level of correspondence received and managed by her office.  The Commissioner explained that it was important to look beyond the figures and consider the complexities and detailed decision-making involved in effectively managing all the different types of correspondence received.

2.    The Commissioner explained that all correspondence had to be responded to effectively; this meant that it was not a simple matter of a response being sent back and that a significant amount of case management was involved.  This could take the form of making suitable referrals to the appropriate partner agency or Kent Police and then either using the response provided to update the member of the public, or following up subsequently to confirm that appropriate action has been taken.

3.    The Commissioner explained that given the emotive and complex nature of the criminal justice system, her office regularly deals with irate members of the public, some of whom are bringing repeat or vexatious complaints to her attention, which have already been addressed appropriately through the accepted protocols.  In addition, a number of callers and correspondents experience mental health issues which can require careful handling by the officers.  This has prompted her staff to undergo further training in effective communication, and also some have been specifically trained on understanding mental health conditions.  The Commissioner highlighted this as an example of how well her staff has managed the complexities of ongoing communication with the public on policing issues.

4.    The Commissioner was positive about the role her office plays in being a conduit for information and referrals to appropriate services and partner agencies and was confident that her office handled the sizeable and complex correspondence well.

5.    The Commissioner expressed her gratitude to the public for corresponding with her office and to her officers for their exemplary professionalism in dealing with the large amount of correspondence and telephone enquiries that required careful management and swift action.

6.    A Member raised a concern regarding the risk of inappropriately labelling correspondents as vexatious due to calling repeatedly.  Laura Steward, OPCC Head of Standards and Regulation, explained that the individual was not labelled as vexatious or repeat but rather the issue they raised, if appropriate, could be deemed to be so.  This was only the case where complaints or issues were repeatedly raised after they have been appropriately addressed or were being dealt with by another agency and further action by the Commissioner or her office would be inappropriate.

7.    A discussion took place in which members questioned the accuracy of the initial report that claimed that the PCC's office dealt with 9000 pieces of correspondence when officer investigation had suggested that 76% of this was immediately referred to Kent Police for handling. 

8.    Firstly the Commissioner and her Chief of Staff explained that, the 9000 figure did not include daily email communications as part of normal business but referred instead to direct contact from the public and relevant partner agencies relating to specific issues requiring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

1.    The Vice-chair suggested that the Commissioner discuss the planned Ethics Committee at a future meeting.  The Commissioner agreed to this.

2.    The Chairman suggested that the Commissioner discuss the matter of the Victim Centre again next year to review progress.  The Commissioner agreed to this.

RESOLVED that the Panel will receive reports on the Ethics Committee and the Victim Centre at future meetings.

RESOLVED that the Panel agree the updated communication protocol.