Agenda item

1.      The Commissioner presented the report which outlined Kent Police’s Neighbourhood Policing Review which had begun 15 months ago under the previous Chief Constable. He said he had received an assurance from the previous Chief Constable that the model would be good as, if not better than the previous one. Acknowledging the loss of PCSOs was regrettable and not a choice he would have made if the circumstances different, he added it was one where he thought communities would see benefits in having police officers instead. The proposed model and implementation would be structured around five main pillars: the Beat Team with ward-based police officers replacing PCSOs on an almost like-for-like basis; the Child-Centred Policing Team which would work with schools and youth centres had seen a small uplift in officers and the number of PCSOs retained; the Neighbourhood Task Force which continued to evolve the Task Force model, but for every district and where PCSOs would remain; the Rural Task Force which was previously considered a central team but was now part of the model and would help develop links with the ward-based Beat Officers; and the Prevention Hub which would focus on anti-social behaviour and licensing at a county level to support Districts and Divisions. He explained that a number of PCSOs would regrettably be lost under the new model to reduce spend and use the council tax precept effectively, but some PCSOs would be replaced with police officers, and the force would continue to consider areas with the greatest need and the level of resourcing they received. Advising that every ward would have a named police officer, the Commissioner said there was a need to clearly define what the ward was and this would be communicated to councillors and members of the public as soon as possible. Some ward-based police officers had already begun their role, but implementation of the model would be phased until 2024. He affirmed that the ward-based police officers would be better ringfenced and Kent Police would work to ensure they remained in their areas as much as possible.

2.      The Chair thanked the Commissioner for his assurance that wards would be clearly defined, and this would be communicated. He felt that it was important for the new ward-based police officers to build a connection with their communities, as PCSOs had previously done. He sought assurances that ward-based police officers could successfully tackle low-level crime and assist vulnerable people. He also asked how long the new police officers would remain in their posts, and if they would be communicating regularly with elected ward members. The Commissioner explained that it was very important to maintain a local beat. The new training programme for neighbourhood policing would also teach new officers the different skills they would need including problem solving and working with the community, and these officers would have more powers than PCSOs so would have increased intervention abilities. He agreed that continuity of police officers in the community was important, so Kent Police had tried to encourage officers to apply for new neighbourhood policing roles where they had previously expressed an interest in this field of work. 

3.      A Member shared their concern regarding the continuity of ward-based police officers and asked how long a police officer would remain, and if data regarding how often they were moved from their ward could be reported publicly. The Commissioner confirmed that a police officer could be moved if needed, but data regarding this issue could be shared at the Performance and Delivery Board once the model was embedded. He added that several of the new ward-based police officers were formerly PCSOs so already had longstanding links with their communities.

4.      The Vice Chair sought reassurance that Kent would not be impacted by the long lead in for implementation of the full model, which was scheduled for September 2024. He also asked that the ward-based police officers link in with charities, business organisations and faith groups to better understand their communities. The Commissioner explained that September 2024 was a worst-case scenario, and the goal was to have an increasing percentage of roles filled at key dates up until early 2024, and this would be monitored closely. He added that ward-based police officers would be engaging with their communities through groups such as NextDoor and My Community Voice, as well as directly. The Vice Chair asked what would happen when the ward-based police officer was on annual leave or sick leave. The Commissioner agreed that it was important for residents, in the absence of their ward-based police officer, to be able to contact somebody. He agreed an action to understand what would happen in the scenario of absence or illness of a ward-based police officer, and who residents could contact.

5.      The Commissioner explained, following a question from a Member, that 101 received approximately 30,000 calls per month and used to be the predominant method of communication with the police, but it was now 999. The new Chief Constable was working with the Commissioner’s office to improve accessibility to 101 and reduce call attrition to less than 10% using a flex resourcing model during peak times, which was successfully reducing wait times and providing residents with a better service. The Performance and Delivery Board was regularly monitoring 101 and it was important that members of the public knew that 101 was an option to report non-emergency enquiries. 

6.      A Member asked if implementation of the Neighbourhood Policing Model could be brought back to the Panel throughout the year. She also queried the morale in the neighbourhood policing model, and if some staff had already moved roles. The Commissioner confirmed that he was happy to bring regular updates to the Panel, as the implementation progressed. He also confirmed that the review had impacted morale amongst some officers and staff who had left for other roles such as with Border Force. The length of time from the announcement of the review to its implementation had meant some officers had chosen to leave, but there were no compulsory redundancies, although some staff had chosen voluntary redundancy. He acknowledged the challenge of improving morale, as this was the largest review since 2017, but many impacted staff had received their preferences and the role they sought.

7.      A Member stressed the importance of communication when undertaking reviews, particularly communications with PCSOs. The Commissioner agreed that initial communications with PCSOs regarding the review had been poor, and the force had tried to retain as many PCSOs as possible or train them to become police officers. He agreed that there were communications lessons to be learnt from the review.

8.      The Commissioner confirmed, following a question from a Member, that the Chief Constable was working to embed a culture change in neighbourhood policing through increased supervision, support and opportunities for officers. He explained that the force was also considering changes to ways of working through remote deployment, meaning police officers would not need to go back to their police station to do paperwork and could work from anywhere with a secure Wi-Fi connection, such as fire stations or parish council offices, as well as working from other police stations not in their ward.

9.      The Chair confirmed that an update on neighbourhood policing would come back to the Panel, and it was agreed that a report would be presented at April’s meeting, but verbal updates could come before then if necessary.

RESOLVED to note the report and agree to a further update at the April 2024 meeting.