Agenda item

1.    The Commissioner introduced this item, and explained that an Executive Summary had been produced.  Commissioners were charged with being the link between local people and the police to bring local people’s views to the policing priorities in the Police and Crime Plan.  A comprehensive engagement strategy was essential due to the geographical area of Kent and its population.  The report contained a list of the engagements undertaken by the Commissioner as  it was important to reach as wide an audience as possible. Paragraph 2 of the report set out the strategy with a mixture of traditional, online and social media to feedback local people’s views to the police.  The Commissioner gave an example that the Chief Constable was altering the policing model in Kent to give it a more local focus.  This is because the feedback to the Commissioner was that the police and communities were slightly stepping back from each other.  Efforts were made to be as imaginative as possible in terms of engaging with the public to underpin strategic priorities within the Police and Crime Plan. 

2.    The Commissioner’s engagement strategy was noted and she was asked whether the views of the public varied across Kent. The Commissioner confirmed that there was a general theme, as set out on page 14 of the report – emerging priorities such as visible community policing, turnover of Community Support Officers, Powers of PCSOs and rural policing issues. 

3.    In response to a question about overcoming the public perception that the police were becoming more distant the Commissioner explained that following the new policing model, which it was hoped would go live on 24 June 2014, the Commissioner had offered to visit local council leaders and councillors, to explain that the policing model was based on the local agenda, putting resources back under the control of the local district inspector.  Every district would have its own Chief Inspector working with the Community Safety Partnerships and local council about local issues.

4.    A Member asked how the time spent on public engagements compared with the time spent on other responsibilities.  The Commissioner explained that public engagement was very much part of the job, the Commissioner had produced two Police and Crime Plans and delivered all manifesto promises.  Kent was on track to have a victim centre and work had been undertaken with the Chief Constable to ensure that Kent’s crime recording figures were the best in the country in addition to working closely with the Force on their finances. 

5.    A Member asked about the significance of Twitter and what it had achieved.  The Commissioner explained that as a new form of communication, twitter, and other forms of social media were the future, it was quick, used by many people and could not be ignored.   

6.    A Member asked the Commissioner whether any analysis of twitter followers, demographics for example, was planned.  It was thought that this might give further clarity to members on the impact of the Commissioner’s social media policy.  The Commissioner confirmed that the next meeting of the Panel would receive a breakdown of the correspondence received by the Office of the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner, a lot of that was received via social media and this point would be followed up.  Social media responses were sent from the Commissioner, or through her communications team. 

7.    Regarding the powers of Police Community Support Officers, this was an operational matter which was the responsibility of the Chief Constable and was constantly kept under review.

8.    The Chairman suggested that rather than there being one key link between the local communities and policing, there were a number of links and this could be reworded to say ‘one of the key links’

RESOLVED that the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel note the Commissioner’s report Management of Public Engagement Responsibilities.