- Police and Crime Plan
- Fire and Rescue Service
- Information & Transparency
- Victims’ Services – Voice
- Force Performance
- Protect Your Home Information
Action Notes and Decision Record
10th January 2017
1. Welcome and Introductions
Stephen Mold (SM), Northamptonshire Police and Crime Commissioner (Chair)
Martin Scoble (MS), Chief Executive, OPCC
John Neilson (JN), Director for Resources and Governance, OPCC
Paul Bullen (PB), Director for Delivery, OPCC
Nicci Marzec (NM), Director for Early Intervention, OPCC
Paul Fell (PF), Director for Delivery, OPCC
Simon Clifford (SC), Director for Technology and Digital Transformation, OPCC
Helen Cook (HC), Head of Involvement, OPCC
Emily Evans (EE), Minute Taker, OPCC
Simon Edens (SE), Chief Constable
Andy Frost (AF), Deputy Chief Constable
Rachel Swann (RS), Assistant Chief Constable
Andrew Wilson (AW), Change Delivery Programme Director
2. Service Delivery Model / Operation Evolution
– Introduced by SE.
– AW began by thanking his team for work undertaken and explaining the scope around 5 key thematic areas, although it was acknowledged that scope is not limited to these areas. It was noted that movement is being made towards good in all HMIC categories and it was agreed that the SDM will help achieve this. AW drew attention to the increasing demand against limited resources. The proposal to increase Officer numbers was discussed with SM querying figures and receiving confirmation regarding how the numbers have been reached. AW noted that this number has increased since the previous SDM business case and explained that additional numbers take in to account student officers. SE added that this
does not include officers on career breaks. SM noted that police staff have not been included in these figures. RS clarified that this would be presented in SDM phase 2.
– AW went on to advise regarding PSCO activity and figures. Discussion was had around this topic.
– AW drew attention to several areas of interest, particularly domestic violence and gave brief rationale for investment in these areas. Aw also noted neighbourhood policing as an area of interest. SM queried figures and requested clarification. RS clarified and reassured of commitment. SE noted that hours are staying the same while officer numbers are being reduced. AW forecasting increased performance in both urban and rural areas. Briefly explained how this will be achieved.
– SM queried how this SDM will evolve and grow. AW explained review process. Discussion had around this area with input from RS and SE. Active resource management noted by SE.
– AW noted that EMPC analysis has been delayed and it is being brought back in house. AW confident about decision and thanks given to SM for offer of support.
– AW advised that scheduled appointments have potential to be managed more efficiently and gave description of how this could be achieved. RS noted some points to consider when making a decision around this. AW advised that these challenges have been taken in to account within the SDM. AW noted that telephone appointments will take place where appropriate. SE suggested that a cultural shift may be required to enable this to happen. AF noted that often officers go to appointments where a telephone call would have been adequate which is not an efficient use of resources.
– AW drew attention to Policing Model Diagram and gave explanation of roles. Noted ongoing work around Force Control Room – to be concluded by end of Feb.
– AW described new Crime Recorder role and how this will improve quality of Policing. The importance of managing expectations was discussed and it was agreed that this is necessary going forward. SM requested clarification around methods of communication. AW advised. SM clarified that he supports new Crime Recorder role.
– SE noted proportionality of different crimes and rationalised different responses to different types of crime. The importance of Victim Impact was noted and some discussion was had around this. SE noted that importance of assessing and categorising crimes effectively. SM queried governance around this. AW confirmed that this is a key area within the framework.
– AW noted that Voice is not included in chart. It was agreed that it would be added. AW explained that SDM includes built in time for victim visits and follow ups.
– AW concluded and gave brief summary of Model.
– AW went on to discuss implementation plan and explained current analysis that is being undertaken. It was advised that overall no major challenges are anticipated. Each area will have its own lead with support overseen by the governance board.
– AW explained that all areas have been actively involved and engaged. AW advised that they will be looking for volunteers to help make the changes a success. HC raised concerns that people who may have a higher impact may not volunteer. AW gave reassurances around
– AW gave overview of proposed Governance of implementation Planning. Explained key areas have been identified. Potential areas requiring additional resources are being monitored and reviewed.
– AW noted engagement with Institute and advised that they are supporting.
– AW keen to progress activity however advised of effects of relocation and consultation around shift patterns. Explanation was given around analysis of shift patterns. SM raised questions around flexible working. RS advised review of flexible working pattern agreements.
– Discussion was had around closure of front desks and positive and negative effects of alternative offer. SE advised of costs involved in front counters.
– Final comment around implementation is that communication plan is critical. AW is hoping to share first force wide internal briefing tomorrow. SM noted that increased proactivity required around communications and this was agreed.
– Concluded that work is still ongoing and gave brief details of ongoing work.
– HC suggested 2 way dialogue between Force and members of the public. RS reassured that PC’s will gather feedback during meetings with members of public.
– AW noted figures and impact. PF suggested that discussion around this is needed. MS noted importance and queried when it will be implemented. RS advised that a decision needs to be reached. SE advised the implications of not being able to deliver the SDM would be increased risk.
– AW advised of ethical debate around funding streams for PCSOs. Discussion had around benefits and any perceived negatives. SE noted that this may result in increased policing in more affluent areas and the consequences of this.
– It was advised by AW that there is ongoing work around early intervention and other departments and that this will continue. Reflection around local collaborative activity and the opportunities it may create.
– Scope of SDM noted by AW and it was advised that best approach is getting it right and not just increasing numbers.
SC suggested that social media should be accessible Force wide. RS advised that this is currently under review. SM noted that programme must meet Policing needs.
Front Counters and Estates Strategy
JN queried consistency ad was reassured by AF and RS.
– SE noted that he is confident about the model.
– SE advised that Primary focus of model is not for inspection purposes but to improve quality of policing, however this will be reflected in inspections.
– SE drew attention to funding gap as well as significant savings.
– SE gave summary of wider context and advised that continuous improvement and development will take place.
– SM noted significant piece of work.
– SE concluded that OPCC engagement is very helpful. SM gave thanks and noted positive progress.