Issue - meetings

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the findings of Surrey Police’s “Call it Out” survey’ and how the resulting data is being used to inform local activity.

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of the

Police and Crime Commissioner)

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    The Head of Performance and Governance introduced the report, explaining that the survey was launched in the period following the murder of Sarah Everard when women were sharing their experiences online. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) and the Force had other sources of data to track residents’ perception of safety as well, but the survey was useful in providing a snapshot for that current point of time.

2.    The Chairman asked about the number of detectives in the rape investigation team, the percentage of posts filled in the sexual offences team, and how many more rape cases were making it to court since the increase in detectives. The Head of Performance and Governance would provide those figures following the meeting. In terms of the team, vacancy rates were quite high as it was a competitive recruitment market. The Force had utilised agency staff to fill capacity, but this was not a sustainable position and was monitored closely. The OPCC supported people through the criminal justice process, ensuring they had access to high quality victim and witness care. The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) added that it was known that victims of rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse often withdrew support for prosecution and that supporting people whilst they awaited their case to be heard was essential, especially with current court delays. However, the position in Surrey was better compared to some neighbouring areas.

3.    A Panel Member asked about the use of the StreetSafe tool in Surrey. The Head of Performance and Governance shared that the tool provided granular insight into where issues took place.

Initially there was a large uptake and it had decreased since. The OPCC was working with the Force to try to re-advertise the tool again. They had used the data for work with victims and to support bids to government for additional commissioning funding.

4.    In response to a question on who had responsibility for streetlighting, the PCC confirmed it was Surrey County Council. The PCC stated that there was often a misconception that the decision rested with the Police, but they had no direct control over lighting, though may be consulted. A Panel Member added that the Council introduced a policy to turn off some streetlights in residential roads and residents could request for decisions to be reconsidered. If the Force supported residents’ requests, then the lights would be turned back on. The Panel Member would raise the issue again with the Leader of the Council from a county-wide perspective. The PCC shared that the Force would not disagree with residents if they wanted the lights turned on and said that any police consultation should not cause delay.

Cllr Satvinder Buttar jointed the meeting at 11:10am.

5.    Responding to a question on plans to repeat the survey and comparable figures from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75

This report details the Force’s recruitment, workforce plan and retention strategy. The following information details how many officers have been recruited to date under the national uplift programme and projections for the rest of the financial year.

Witnesses:

Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner)

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The Head of Performance and Governance noted that the Force was on target to meet the end of financial year officer uplift target. Although, there were some challenges with the recruitment market. Attrition rates had stabilised and there was work happening with the Force around proactively retaining police staff and police officers.

2. The Chairman asked about the proportion of police officer apprentices who completed the degree and stayed to work in Surrey following graduating. The Head of Performance and Governance explained that the Force-wide average for those dropping out was 9.7%. For student officers with two years of service or less, that figure was 16%. This could be broken down further into the police constable degree apprenticeship programme (attrition rate of 21%) and degree holders entry programme (attrition rate of 11%). The Force were being proactive to better support new recruits. Often those who dropped out did so because they underestimated the level of academic work involved and therefore, the Force are trying to better explain this element to those considering joining through this pathway.

3. A Panel Member asked what work the Force was doing to improve career development opportunities. The Head of Performance and Governance explained that there was a dedicated gold group that looked at retention. The public sector was limited in terms of decisions it could make around pay and rewards. However, the Force was revising performance assessments and career development opportunities. It was suggested that the Panel discussed the matter with the Chief Constable at their scheduled meeting, as he would be better placed to provide more detail.

4. A Panel Member asked what the current officer vacancy rate was and asked what other Forces were offering that Surrey was not. The Chief Finance Officer explained that staff were leaving for the private sector, rather than other Forces. The Head of Performance and Governance shared that there was a 6% vacancy rate for police staff built into the budget but the actual vacancy rate was significantly greater due to recruitment issues.

5. A Panel Member queried whether the vacancy rate was due to a lack of recruitment or savings that needed to be made, and how planned savings could impact staff workforce levels. The Chief Finance Officer explained that it was due to staff leaving for increased pay, and they were struggling to replace them. The current actual vacancy rate may cover a substantial amount of the savings required; however, the gaps were in the wrong areas of the business. The Force might consider increasing the pay of the posts that are difficult to fill in order to attract people, but this had affordability implications.

RESOLVED:

The Panel noted the report.

The purpose of this report is to inform the Police & Crime Panel of the OPCC’s financial performance at Month 9 for the 2021/22 financial year together with an estimate of the year end outturn against budget.

Witnesses:

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer – OPCC

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The CFO introduced the report and explained that the OPCC’s budget was split into operational costs and monies allocated for commissioning and grants. The CFO highlighted that many Panels do not receive such detailed information on their respective OPCC’s expenditure, and this was provided to maintain transparency as established by the former PCC. The CFO explained that there was an overprediction in expenditure for the year end outturn, especially for the DPCC’s salary.

2. A Panel Member queried what was meant by the ‘Member’s Attendance Allowance’ as included in the report. The CEX explained that was likely for the OPCC’s independent members or legally qualified chairs, as the OPCC had a role in recruiting those individuals.

3. The Chairman queried why the cost of ‘other contributions’ was at £46,724 when it had a budget of zero. The CFO could not recall what made up this cost so would report back to the Panel in due course.

Actions/requests for further information:

1. R6/22 – The Chief Finance Officer to provide further information on ‘other contributions’ of the OPCC for the 2021/22 financial year.

RESOLVED:

The Panel noted and commented on the report.