Agenda item

1.    Following reports presented at the February and October 2023 Panel meetings, this paper provided an update on Kent Police’s performance in managing public demand within the Force Control Room (FCR).

2.    The Commissioner said that this had been an area of particular concern, and one that had been reported to the Panel regularly over the course of the last three years. This provided a good example of how the Commissioner’s scrutiny of Kent Police performance had led to improvement.

3.    The Commissioner reported that, in 2022-23, Kent Police's 101 performance was poor. Its call-handling function was one of the worst in the country. The main reason was insufficient capacity in the Force Control Room.

4.    A number of measures were put in place to address this problem, including recruiting more staff to work in the Control Room. As a result, over the last couple of years, performance in terms of managing 999 emergency and non-emergency 101 calls had improved significantly, and the number of calls not answered had reduced to very low levels.

5.    National comparisons indicated that Kent Police was now performing to a high standard. In terms of 999 call performance, its ranking had improved from 27^th to 2^nd for average answer time, with calls answered in under 10 seconds improving from 33^rd to 2^nd.

6.    In terms of 101 call performance, in 2024-25, 97% of calls were answered, and the average waiting time was 31 seconds. In contrast, in October 2022, 55% of calls were answered and the average waiting time was 15 minutes and 51 seconds.

7.    Digital contact methods had also been promoted in order to help victims engage with Kent Police, and for people to report other matters, for example vehicle collisions and anti-social behaviour. The Commissioner stressed that it was not intended to be a replacement for the 101 non-emergency service.

a.    In answer to a question, the Commissioner clarified that there was no expectation or requirement that residents had to provide digital evidence to the police.

8.    The Chair asked whether it was possible for the Panel to visit to the Force’s Control Room.

a.    The Commissioner welcomed the request.

9.    In reply to a question about what measures had been adopted to reduce staff turnover in the Control Room, the Commissioner said that contributing factors were: increased staff engagement, shift pattern reviews, pay reviews, workplace site re-location, improved working environment, technological changes and improvements to working practices.

10.A Member asked whether, in addition to figures, evidence of the quality of caller satisfaction was collected.

a.    The Commissioner said that Kent Police did not routinely collect victim satisfaction surveys, except for three specific crime types: rape, hate crime and domestic abuse. Qualitative evidence was also gathered via the Rapid Video Response Program, where victims opted to speak to a police officer via a video link.

11.In response to three operational questions in relation to specific crimes/incidents which had affected Panel Members personally – although neither the Commissioner nor his Office had access to, or held operational policing information - the Commissioner said his Office wouldengage with Kent Police in order to seek assurance around the action taken.

RESOLVED: That the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel note the report.