Meeting documents

General

Panel Members are asked to consider general performance information which includes:-

·         national benchmarking information

·         HMICFRS Police Efficiency Report 2017

·         the OPCC and TVP Delivery Plans which were discussed at the PCC public meeting on 16 November 2017.

Specific

·         999 calls/ 101 service and what actions have been taken to improve response times (and the implementation of the new Contact Management Programme)

·         To consider the OPCC report on Strategic Aim 1 of the Police and Crime Plan on Vulnerability

Members were asked to consider general and specific performance information which included:-

·                National benchmarking information

·                HMICFRS Police Efficiency Report 2017

·                OPCC and TVP Delivery Plans

·                Police and Crime Plan – Strategic Aim 1

Police Efficiency Report

The Chief Constable reported that they were judged on the following criteria:-

·         How well does the Force understand demand – TVP has an outstanding understanding of the demand for its services that is based on detailed analysis of a wide range of data, including from partner agencies such as the ambulance and fire and rescue services

·         How well does the Force use its resources – it has an outstanding understanding of workforce skills and abilities through the College of Policing’s competency and values framework. They make best use of finite resources and manage change programmes well.

·         How well is the Force planning for the future – TVP is good with some elements being outstanding. The Force has displayed innovation, embracing and investing in technology. The Chief Constable referred to the £100million investment in the next 4 years to make sure they were fit for the future.

Strategic Priority 1 – Police and Crime Plan

The PCC introduced his report and that his objective was to manage demand on services through better working with partners, with particular emphasis on three priority areas; mental health, adults at risk and service quality. He commented on the work being undertaken with Community Safety Partnerships particularly with vulnerable people as he was one of only a few PCCs who distributed some of his funding to CSPs as he thought that this would ensure that each geographical area could prioritise this funding according to local needs. However, the OPCC monitor this funding very carefully to ensure value for money and good outcomes are achieved.

His Victims Services programme was being managed well by the OPCC Policy Manager including the complex needs service which provided specialist counselling services. The OPCC worked with a wide range of partners including prisons to ensure good rehabilitation for ex offenders.

The PCC referred to hidden forms of abuse and commented that this was a difficult area to tackle as it was embedded in some communities. It was particularly difficult to get victims to report these crimes as they would often be ostracised by their family and friends. They have still yet to prosecute any cases of female genital mutilation. Either the number of cases had been over estimated or there was a lack of reporting.

The PCC reported that he was the current Chairman of the Local Criminal Justice Board and this was being utilised to engage with key delivery groups and encourage a more joined up criminal justice system. Work was also being undertaken on domestic abuse and the OPCC had procured a Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programme for a one year pilot. They were also managing an interim Domestic Violence funding arrangement and working with Local Authorities, Clinical Commissioning Groups and other organisations to seek future closer collaboration between all commissioners, including pooled budgets. Figures for repeat cases of domestic abuse were down slightly.

In terms of sexual offences they had increased prosecutions in relation to rape but there was still a high failure rate in the courts.

During discussion the following points were made:-

·         Cllr Mallon referred to the lack of reporting with Female Genital Mutilation which was a hidden crime. There had been a recent article on this and the importance of reporting this crime with only 5% of honour crimes being reported to the CPS.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/07/only-5-of-honour-crimes-reported-to-police-are-referred-to-cps

                         The PCC reported that they were trying to address this issue, particularly in Reading and Slough but it was very difficult to get victims to come forward to make allegations.

·         Cllr Hayes referred to page 95 of the agenda which related to the OPCC supporting victims of exploitation and modern slavery – a budget had been identified and they were engaging with modern slavery networks and exploring local providers. Cllr Hayes commented that this service had been provided by Rahab in Oxford and in two years’ service they had made 50 referrals, 12 of them being made through the National Referrals Mechanism. There were real concerns about the future of this service when good pathways had taken so long to be developed and were now in place. The PCC asked that Cllr Hayes email him the details and he would look into it with his Policy Manager.

Action: Cllr Hayes

·         Cllr Egleton asked about the report on the full review and restructure of the nine Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs which was aimed at providing greater resilience. The Chief Constable reported that this was more of an internal restructure where some changes had been made to job descriptions. There was a further review being undertaken of the MASHs and a report would be provided to the PCC. Cllr Egleton asked that the Panel be kept up to date on this area.

Action: PCC/Chief Constable