Agenda item

1.      The Commissioner introduced her draft refreshed Police and Crime Plan for 2014/15. The Plan was similar to the original plan which was approved by the Panel. She explained that this plan reflected the people of Kent’s priorities and changing priorities throughout the year. The key changes were  the removal of numerical performance targets, the inclusion of partnership objectives to demonstrate the value of working with partners the inclusion of the PCC’s responsibility for commissioning victims services and implementation of a Victims’ Centre.  In terms of Community Safety Grants there is a commitment to giving out what comes in but this has had to suffer the same cuts as the general. The Panel welcomed the emphasis on partnership working within the Plan and the opportunity that the Commissioner had given to Panel members to comment on an early draft of the Plan. 

2.      Members of the Panel noted that the refreshed Plan contained no numerical targets, whereas the previous version had set a number of targets over the period of the Plan.  Panel Members sought clarification of how the Commissioner would asses Force performance and judge success if there were no targets set.  The Panel noted that the Commissioner intended to use satisfaction with the service, partnership working and visible presence on the streets to judge success and to ensure that the force delivered a quality service to the people of Kent.  The Panel noted that the Commissioner considers her approach to be supportive of efforts to avoid a performance driven culture in the Force and to be consistent with the approach to targets taken by the Home Secretary and HMIC.  The Commissioner explained that HMIC advice had been that rigid targets skewed activity. She explained that  the Chief Constable was held to account at the Governance Board meetings. 

3.      One Member commended the Commissioner on removing the targets and the community would hold the Commissioner to account with regards to delivery.  Regarding public engagement it was vital that the community were aware of visits and it was thought that there were some hard to reach groups which still might find it difficult to access the Commissioner.  The Commissioner explained that in her work with the community the public had confirmed that they did not want a deputy commissioner.  Regarding accessing hard to reach groups she had worked closely with the University and Learning Disability Groups more recently in relation to hate crime. 

4.      The Panel asked the Commissioner about the recruitment and deployment of PCSOs and whether their powers could be usefully extended.  The Panel noted the Commissioner’s support for PCSOs but understood recruitment was linked to funding and that decisions about deployment and powers were for the Chief Constable to determine. The Commissioner explained she had written to the council leaders offering to speak with each Council, along with the Chief Constable, to talk about the neighbourhood policing model.

5.      In response to a query about the ‘one stop shop’ for Kent’s Victims and whether this would be an adequate resource for such a large County. The Commissioner explained that this wouldn’t be limited to a physical building and would also act as a signposting service where victims could get help. It was still in the early stages of planning but it would look at wrapping services around people and could include looking at how families of victims could also be supported.  The Panel supported the intention to establish the Victim Centre. 

6.      The Panel questioned the Commissioner on how she intended to retain the focus on visible community policing when neighbourhood officers had been reduced and initiatives such as Predictive Policing were being used.  The Panel noted the Commissioner’s intention to ensure any future changes to the policing model were based on neighbourhoods.  The Commissioner had tasked the Chief Constable to ensure the policing model in Kent was based on community policing, in response to a query the Commissioner reminded members that anti-social behaviour was not solely a policing issue.  The work of the Community Safety Partnerships was valued and in addition to the funding provided to the Community Safety Partnerships the Commissioner had put in place a fund for partners to bid to to support delivery. .

7.      Members asked what role the Special Constables played in the Commissioner’s Plan, the Commissioner explained that the Governance Board had an item on Special Constables and how they had developed, they were a highly valuable resource and would like to see more in the county but it was costly to recruit and train them. There were around 300 Specials contributing approximately 100hours per year each.  They were warranted officers facing the same issues as regular Police Officers.  The Commissioner had provided additional funding to train Special Constables. They had a high turnover due to the voluntary nature of the work. 

8.      In response to a question about serious organised crime in Kent the Commissioner reminded members that the present Chief Constable had a background in the serious organised crime. There was a joint Serious Crime Directorate with Essex which targeted organised crime, there was close working with the south east region and the National Crime Agency would be visiting to discuss close working. 

9.      The Panel asked whether, in respect of grants, the Commissioner had considered having a general fund which could be used to target resources where there was most need.  The Panel noted the Commissioner’s view that decisions on grant allocations were the result of engaging with partners and directing money where it would be of most value in relation to her Plan. 

10.One Member asked about internet safety amongst young people and how this fitted into the Plan and with the new Youth Commissioner.  The Commissioner explained that Schools Liaison Officers had a comprehensive programme with secondary schools but it was also necessary to engage with the primary schools. The Commissioner was funding a programme with  upper primary schools to educate young people on internet safety.  The Youth Commissioner would also have a key role in communicating with young people and the Community Safety Partnerships.  The Safer Schools Partnership was a matter for the Chief Constable. 

11.The Chairman and other Panel Members noted that whilst the Plan mentioned harnessing innovation from the private sector it did not contain proposals to outsource back office functions, which some members felt might produce significant savings.  The Panel noted the Commissioner’s intention to find ways of bringing private sector best practice into back office functions whilst reiterating her opposition to the privatisation of Kent Police. 

RESOLVED that the Panel welcomed the opportunity that the Commissioner had given to Panel members to comment on an early draft of the Plan and noted the Commissioner’s Draft Refreshed Plan 2014/15.