Meeting documents

To receive an update of progress against the Police and Crime Plan Q4 2016/17 to enable Panel members to scrutinise performance, seek assurance and assess outcomes achieved in the reporting period.

The Panel considered a report by the PCC which informed members of the progress against the Police and Crime Plan and Priorities 2013-17 for Quarter 4 2016/17.  The PCC highlighted elements of performance against the Plan during this quarter.

 

The PCC provided commentary for members on a few key areas of activity and highlighted the priorities in the Plan. The questions below were asked by Panel members to which the PCC responded:-

 

1.     Differing reports have appeared in the local press recently regarding levels of reported crimes that remain ‘unresolved’. Equally the Panel is aware of the pressures that the Commissioner and Dorset Police are facing.  Would the Commissioner like to comment further on the position?

 

Dorset Police is committed to investigating all reports of crime and in 2015/16 had a detection rate that was above the national average. The detection rate continues to improve, and in 2016/17 was ranked in the top quarter nationally (11th out of 43 forces). While we understand the public’s interest in detection rates, it is also important to emphasise that they are not the only measure of investigative performance. Although a crime may not have resulted in a criminal justice outcome, it still will have been investigated. There are different ways of investigating a crime, including telephone investigation conducted by a call handler, the attendance of a police officer at the scene or by a specialist member of staff, such as a crime scene investigator or a high-tech crime analyst.

 

Additionally, while 23% of crimes result in the criminal justice outcomes highlighted by these statistics, a huge amount of other work takes place that is not recorded as a detection. This includes safeguarding vulnerable victims, working with partners to respond to community issues or resolve anti-social behaviour, taking an educational approach to first-time lower-level offenders, or organising local restorative justice.

 

It is also honest and realistic to recognise that some crimes simply aren’t solvable, as there are no viable lines of enquiry or the information given is not detailed enough to pursue. Nevertheless, Dorset Police ensures crimes are recorded when allegations are made, so people can have faith in our statistics.

 

The PCC highlighted that it was very hard to solve crimes without a target. Dorset Police investigation of crimes was now in the top quarter nationally for solving crime. New operating model would be introduced with the Alliance.

 

One member made reference to the pressure on police to investigate a crime but there was no longer a pressure to detect it?

 

The PCC confirmed this was correct but he also wanted victims to feel well served. For example, HMIC has judged Dorset Police to be ‘good’ in investigating crime, but that the actual crime outcome itself was no longer being measured to the same extent that it was previously.  He also felt that there was an impact of austerity. The PCC highlighted the difference between his previous plan and this year’s plan in this regard.  He felt that crimes were better recorded which affected outcomes but accepted this did need to improve.

 

2.     (Para 1.6) Service 101 Panel – The Panel welcomes the reported improvement in reduced call waiting times and call abandonment rates.  Can the Commissioner provide some detail to support these improved outcomes and show the positive direction of travel?

 

The Deputy PCC advised members that a lot of work had been undertaken in the call handling centre to bring about the improvements. There had been an increase from 72% to 80% in call answering statistics. He highlighted that a Customer Services Improvement Panel would stand up to look at all types of customer contact, including monitoring the 101 call centre. The Panel would consist of some of the existing members but he was hoping for a couple of representatives from the private sector e.g  from retail or someone with call handling experience.

 

The OPCC also invited a member of the Panel to observe the Customer Services Improvement Panel in order to report back to the Panel issues that needed to be addressed.  It was highlighted that a volunteer from the Panel would be needed for this role.

 

Members noted that the 101 calls to triage had vastly improved, but wanted to consider the rates of abandonment and subsequent answering.  The Deputy PCC undertook to advise members outside of the meeting in this regard.

 

Following a question about the legacy of 101 and whether that had improved, the Deputy PCC advised they were now starting to see a distinct improvement in public perception of the service.  The number of complaints received by the PCC on the 101 service had decreased and most people were now satisfied with the facility. Messages about the appropriateness of calls people were making still needed voicing and staff were having to be firmer with callers. 

 

In response to a comment about whether more resource was needed, the Deputy PCC advised that it was more about the length of time taken to train callers.  The numbers in the call centre had increased by 12 which showed that the PCC had invested in the future to improve performance.

 

3.     (Para 1.17) Future Quarterly Reporting to the Panel – The Panel welcomed the opportunity to work with the OPCC to develop future quarterly reporting arrangements and awaited further contact to contribute to these changes.  As minuted at the panel meeting in February 2017, Cllr Andrew Kerby and Mike Short had offered to lead on this work, with support from Mark Taylor.

 

4.     (Para 2.1.1) Crime Rates – The Panel acknowledges and welcomes the positive position achieved in Dorset for many areas of crime when compared against others.   Drug offences and Thefts from persons are cited as those crimes where Dorset compares less favourably than other forces.  Despite focused activity it would appear that our rates continue to be higher than others.  What more can and is being done?

 

Dorset Police has been consistently graded as a ‘good’ force in the recent HMIC police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) inspections and was recently commended by HMIC for the performance improvements it has made, even against the backdrop of national budget cuts over the last eight years.

 

The HMIC reports describe Dorset Police as good at keeping people safe and reducing crime; providing a high standard of crime investigation, providing victims with a good service, and managing serious and organised crime offences well.

 

The complexity of work was increasing every year. For instance we are more likely to investigate cases of child abuse, sexual crimes or cyber-attacks than the more traditional crimes such as drug offences, theft and burglary.

 

This particular focus on ensuring that Dorset Police and its partners protect and safeguard vulnerable people, is one that both the Chief Constable and the PCC share. In this context, it is right to acknowledge that performance against crimes such as drug offences and theft have slipped, but that given the alternatives, it is right that resources and effort are prioritised elsewhere.

 

5.     (Para 2.2.13) Hate Crime – The figures show a 9.3% increase (495 incidents) in recorded hate crime.  Can the Commissioner comment on the County’s current rise and provide the Panel with some assurance on planned activity to tackle this, especially in light of national terrorist incidents in recent months?

 

This increase is to be celebrated, as it is a direct result of hard work conducted by Dorset Police and its partners to increase the level of this still under-reported crime. There has been an increase in transgender hate crime (based on the view of the victims). A brief review of the incidents would indicate that some of the offensive behaviour may have been homophobic; however, the Force has recorded correctly based on the view of the victim. It is important to note that the increase in the number of reports, whilst positive, is still small.

 

Following a question from a member about whether any particular areas had been targeted, the PCC advised that in June last year there were some anti-European incidents, late summer there was an anti-sematic spate now they were recording anti-Muslim attacks. Colleagues in the police were trying to reassure communities. He noted that at present there appeared to be an increase in relation to trans gender attacks.

 

In respect of any action taken, the PCC advised that it depended on the incident. The Chairman asked what communities had the PCC reached out to.  The PCC confirmed that he had talked to many communities and held roadshows, but acknowledged that he needed to do more with respect to the  Muslim community.

 

6.     (Para 2.3.7) Fraud & Cyber Crime – A resident’s survey showed a 55% rate of concern on this issue, which was significant.  Panel members questioned what level of financial losses were being reported and did this largely relate to a particular age profile?  What more could the Commissioner do to educate Dorset residents about the risk and particular actions they could take to reduce this risk?

 

At present Dorset was the second highest in the country with £91m lost in a quarter, however it was recognised that around £88m of this related to a single incident that was potentially  in dispute. The Dorset Police Cyber Crime Officer had spoken with a significant number of residents about protecting against cyber crime, and the PCC was also raising awareness in respect of fraud via public engagements, and was launching a new website. Nationally, there would also be a range of TV adverts alerting people to the process.

 

7.     (Para 2.5.3) Residents Survey’s – The Panel commended the PCC on the positive results achieved from these surveys.  

 

Finance Section:

The Panel congratulated the Commissioner on achieving an underspend position, which considering the reductions in Government funding, was a remarkable outcome. The following questions were asked and response given from the Treasurer to the OPCC:

 

1.     Can the Commissioner please confirm the total reserve position of Dorset Police and the OPCC at the 31 March 2017.  It would be good to understand how the actual 31/3/17 position related to the £11.3m forecast presented as part of the 3rd Quarter report and to receive an explanation for any key variances.

 

The amended reserves table circulated prior to the meeting represented an increased level of reserves at the year end when compared with the schedule presented for quarter 3.  The key reason for this is the increased level of capital reserves at the year-end due to slippage on the capital programme.  The funds held for capital purposes are fully committed for schemes that are currently in progress. The quarter 3 schedule also omitted the balance on the Major Operations Reserve.  This reserve is maintained in the event that revenue funding is insufficient to meet the cost of in year major operations. This was also omitted in error in the budget papers for 2017-18 as it was originally intended to roll it into general balances but it was later decided to leave as a specific earmarked reserve.

 

The PCCs Treasurer agreed to report back to the Panel on this anomaly; especially the re-introduction of the Major Operations Reserve and the additional £1.8m in the Capital Cash Flow/Capital Reserves finding line.

 

2.     Including the £283,000 2016/17 underspend, can the Commissioner please confirm the amount of funding now available for the PCC Local Innovation Fund in 2017/18 and his intentions as to how it will be applied.

 

The £283,000 underspend was a combination of underspends on the OPCC budget offset by an overspend on the Force budget. Of this, £232,000 was the underspend on the Local Innovation Fund from 2016-17. This has been carried forward to 2017-18. The Local Innovation Fund has a base budget of £300,000 so it will be increased by this sum for 2017-18 however, the additional funds are likely to be spent over the remainder of the PCCs term of office, not just in this financial year.

Commitments against the fund so far this year were £128k for the Victims Bureau which was jointly funded with the Force and £20k for CSAS in Weymouth and Boscombe. Other commitments would be made as projects were brought forward during the year and would be reported to the Panel.

 

3.     Section 3.16 of the report highlights that higher than budgeted redundancy costs have been incurred in 2016/17. Can the panel be advised as to how much was incurred on such costs in 2016/17, how many posts where made redundant, and generally what was the nature of such posts.

 

The total spend on redundancy costs, excluding pension strain, was £117k for 10 posts:

 

No of posts	Post Title
1	Information Security Officer & Assurance Manager
1	Community Engagement Officer
1	Head of HR Alliance Team
2	Administration Services Officer x 2
1	Payroll / Pensions Advanced Technician
1	Finance Policy Officer
1	Payroll Manager
1	Head of Finance and Business Support Services (NB: excl pension strain cost)
1	Workshop Co-ordinator
10

 

NB: Pension strain costs, which were included in ’other employee expenses’ totalled £105k, and related to Finance and HR posts.

 

Noted