Meeting documents

To consider the attached report which provides Members with an update on the Local Policing Model.

Deputy Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, Jason Hogg attended the meeting and introduced the report. The report provided the Panel with an update on the current Local Policing model within Thames Valley Police and provided the background to the history of the model.

 

Reference was made to the original objective of the new Local Policing Model which was to undertake a review of the structure and activity of Local Police Area level policing in view of the changing demands on the service, with reduced resource. It was reported that a new operating model was developed to meet those changing demands, with the cornerstone of the model being increased neighbourhood policing allied to problem solving.

 

The Panel was informed that the model was implemented on 1 June, 2017 with the objective to manage demand more effectively, and to provide a ‘one touch’ response to the public, reducing the number of officers that victims had contact with. 

 

The Panel was informed that the 24 hour Response Teams were reduced in size to provide a more specialist resource that could attend immediate and urgent incidents. The Response teams would not carry an investigative workload which would allow them to concentrate on responding.

 

Reference was made to the managing of investigations where for example, crimes at petrol stations were reported on the telephone, rather than by the physical presence of the Police.

 

An Investigation Hub was developed that consisted of detectives, uniformed officers and police staff case investigators.  These teams were to be responsible for all local crime, and other responsibilities such as missing persons, fear for welfare enquiries and scene/cell watches.  The Investigation Hub, as the largest team, would also support the Response teams by providing additional resources during periods of ‘surge’ demand.

 

The Neighbourhood teams were restructured to incorporate geographical teams to provide visibility and engagement, while the Problem Solving teams focused on the longer term issues and early intervention. To support the management of demand, each LPA was required to provide a Smarter Resolution function where low risk demand could be resolved or filtered out from the front line, essentially providing a triage function on the LPAs. Some LPAs maintained or developed Proactive teams to target local priorities.

 

The more sophisticated assessment of demand, allowed for the resourcing levels of each LPAs to be reviewed.  This resulted in a redistribution of resources across the LPAs, which reflected demand more accurately.  In addition, the shift patterns also reflected calls for service, and increased the number of officers available during the day and evening, while reducing the night turn.

 

Reference was made to the implementation of the new model, which coinciding with increased demands on the Police, with increased calls caused mainly as a result of increased crime and recent terrorist attacks. The impact was felt on Police Officers who at the same time saw their numbers reduced by around 150.

 

The Panel was informed that the changes in shift patterns had affected staff welfare; with officers reporting being continually tired and unable to recuperate effectively. 

 

The Deputy Chief Constable reported that as a result, a number of further changes were recommended to be made which included a change to the shift pattern, a review of command areas, a review of the Smarter Resolution function and the workforce mix between police and police staff. It was recognised that there was a necessity to recruit more officers to meet demand and the requirements of the new Local Model. 

 

The solutions which were agreed by the Force resulted in the following actions:

 

1.     Merging the Response team and Investigation Hub to promote a one team ethos.  It was also felt that this integration would share the burden of investigative work more equitably between resources and achieve better supervision.  This team is now called the Incident and Crime Response (ICR) team.

 

2.     In order to provide adequate and consistent leadership to staff as well as LPA performance accountability, each LPA now has a dedicated Inspector for each of the five ICR teams. In addition each LPA has a Detective Inspector and a minimum of two Neighbourhood Inspectors.

 

3.     Review of minimum / safe staffing - To ensure safety and force resilience remained a priority at the front end of 24 hour operational response.

 

4.     Each LPA would maintain a Smarter Resolution Team and this team to have a dedicated supervisor.

 

5.     Each LPA to develop a proactive capability to have a Team 6 if desired. This team’s focus would be on the threats posed by County Drugs lines.

 

6.     Maintain and develop the Area CID function.

In order to support the LPAs in securing these changes, there was an increase of 18 Police Officers to support the front line, and an extension of temporary police staff investigators. The increase in Police precept has been essential in achieving this. The Force anticipates that it will be up to full establishment for Police officers by September 2019.

 

Panel Members asked the following questions:

 

1.               Reference was made to lack of evidence of increased visible policing on the streets, with an example of Princes Risborough given and that the move to problem solving policing was taking police officers off of the streets. Could the PCC provide an assurance that the Chief Constable’s new local policing model would continue to be monitored to ensure local policing for residents was improved and that a further report be provided to the Panel on the  operation of the new model, once staffing is up to full establishment and fully trained?   

 [The PCC reported that an update report would be submitted to the Autumn meeting of the Panel, providing details of where the improvements to improved local policing had been made.]

 

2.               Could the PCC explain whether this new local policing model would have any effect on the role of Local Authority CSP’s?  

[The PCC informed the Panel that he would be meeting shortly with all Community Safety Partnerships when he would raise the issues around the local policing model and discuss the impact on CSPs.]

 

3.               Reference was made to the Smarter Resolution Teams and the PCC was asked whether these officers would respond to commercial burglaries.

[The PCC acknowledged that the Police response to commercial burglaries was a problem at a national level and this needed to improve.]

 

4.               The Milton Keynes Council representative reported that his Council, as part of its Council Plan, had agreed an allocation of £500k to work with the Police to recruit and retain Police Community Support Officers for the Milton Keynes area.

[The PCC welcomed the announcement from Milton Keynes Council and reported that the contribution for extra Police Community Support Officers would make a difference. Reference was made to Police Community Support Officers leaving to become full time Police Officers which created a problem. Further work was needed on the retention of Police Community Support Officers as they were an important visible resource. ]

 

5.               A Member referred to good neighbourhood Police Officers and PCSOs who had left the local area and their replacements had to learn about the neighbourhood area. This also affected communities as their new local Police Officers and PCSOs were often not provided with a good "handover" which created problems. This transition needed to improve.

[The PCC reported that local knowledge was a cornerstone of neighbourhood policing and "handovers" needed to be better to enable a better service to be provided to the public. The high turnover of PCSOs was not helping the situation.]

 

6.               A Member expressed concern that what was introduced last year had not worked and the PCC was asked if he was confident that eventually this new Local Policing Model would work and would officers be given training. In addition, reference was made to the increased Police Precept and the PCC was asked for details on how much the implementation of the new Local Policing Model would cost.

 

[The PCC reported that the Police establishment was around 70/80 short but should be up to full establishment by September. New entrants would take at least two years to train. The Panel was informed that the funding for the new Local Policing Model comprised of around one-third of Police Precept funding.

 

Reference was made to the need for more Government funding for Policing and the PCC expressed his unhappiness at having to ask for an increase in the Police Precept, even though it was supported by the public in the consultation which took place.

 

The PCC commented that the Local Police Model had not failed, and referred to the new model being introduced at the time of an exceptional demand on the Thames Valley Police. He referred to President Trump’s visit and the Royal Weddings; all which diverted police resources and impacted on policing around the Thames Valley.

 

The PCC agreed to provide a further update on the Local Policing Model and on funding to the autumn meeting of the Panel.]

 

RESOLVED – That the update provided be noted and the PCC be asked to provide a further update on the implementation of the Local Policing Model, together with details on costs.