Agenda item

1.         The Commissioner explained that the measurement of victim satisfaction in Kent had been mixed but the Chief Constable was asked to report back on the key areas of Hate Crime, Rape and Domestic Abuse.  It had been suggested that the survey be extended to include other crime types and the statistics were being presented at every Performance and Delivery Board to allow progress to be tracked. 

2.         The commissioned charity Victim Support also measured the level of victim satisfaction with the service provided. 

3.         In terms of community engagement, the force was asked to provide information about different types of community engagement, these areas were not always consistent, and the Commissioner highlighted Parish Council meetings as an example.  The Commissioner met every 6 months with the district chairs of Kent Association of Local Councils.  The Force was looking at ways in which it could engage with local communities, it was considered that social media was a mixed experience. 

4.         Elaine Bolton asked how the Commissioner held the Chief Constable to account on the key themes around dissatisfaction and how he ensured that these were addressed.  The Commissioner confirmed that he had asked the Chief Constable about the reasons for people being dissatisfied and how the Force could learn from such comments.  People were sometimes unhappy with the outcome of their case, the Force would continue to monitor this and it was considered that there was room for improvement.  Victim satisfaction would be discussed at the Performance and Delivery Board on 25 September. 

5.         The Vice-Chairman asked about hate crime and whether it would be possible to look into satisfaction levels further, particularly individuals with English as a second language.  In addition, regarding social media, a report had just been finalised following engagement with young people, looking at how Kent Police used social media, it was considered that twitter was used by professional classes, people on the street used Facebook and Instagram more regularly.  The Commissioner confirmed that the longer term hate crime satisfaction figures would be circulated to Panel Members.   He agreed with the comments about social media and that it was essential to diversify when it came to using effectively. 

6.         Mr Rhodes asked whether the Commissioner was content with the surveys being conducted over the telephone by staff within the Research Bureau and whether face to face was more appropriate?  The Commissioner considered that this may be more beneficial, but there was a need to manage the volume of surveys against resources available. 

7.         Mr Palmer raised the issue of low level crime, and he asked for an assurance that this was being taken seriously by the Chief Constable.  The Commissioner confirmed that progress was being made in terms of increasing local policing teams and the crime squad.  The Police prioritise demand based on threat, harm and risk, but the Chief Constable’s message is to provide a quality service and put victims and witnesses at the heart of everything the force does.

8.         Cllr Mochrie-Cox welcomed the move towards monitoring other crime types, he asked how the opinions of those young people under the age of 16 was being captured, whose experiences of the criminal justice system may be very different?  The Commissioner confirmed that he did not want anyone to be disenfranchised on the basis of age or protected characteristics.  He considered it vital to engage with young people affected by crime.  The Commissioner’s surveys did not discriminate on the basis of age and a piece of work was undertaken in February 2018 where schools were invited to circulate a survey to young people around their experiences of cybercrime and bullying and 6,500 responses were received from young people.   Kent Police also engaged with youth councils, and he issued caution around creating adverse experiences by not listening to the voices of young people around crime and the criminal justice system. 

9.         Cllr Clark asked how much reliance could be placed on the figures?  The Commissioner explained that the figures could be a reflection of the level of service, the Force had dedicated police officers to work with families affected by some crimes such as rape, this may well reflect why 91.4% of victims were satisfied.  The Crown Prosecution Service threshold around rape and sexual offences was very high and therefore there was a reduction in numbers going to court.  Regarding shoplifting this was not considered to be a victimless crime.  Kent Police did prosecute shoplifters but also aware that there was not always sufficient capability to do so, there was improving relationships between Kent Police and local businesses.  It was hoped that where there were extra resources there would be a reduction in crime.

10.      Cllr Gideon asked whether hate crime was a crime against anyone with a protected characteristic, she asked for a report back on hate crime with a greater breakdown, including the types of crime and if possible, information on vexatious victims.  The Commissioner confirmed that he would report back to the Panel on these issues. 

11.      Mrs Bolton asked about burglary victims, if the Commissioner provided a further report on victim satisfaction it would be useful to have that survey included. 

12.      Cllr Hollingsbee referred to shop lifting, the Commissioner explained that the Force did engage with security staff and work was being done on reporting and communication lines. 

RESOLVED that the Panel note the Commissioner’s update on Victim Satisfaction and Community Engagement and in due course the Commissioner provides a further report that includes:

(a)   Hate crime, with a breakdown by crime type and if possible, information on vexatious victims;

(b)   Burglary victim satisfaction levels;

(c)   Benchmarking of victim satisfaction against statistical neighbours.