Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011) places a duty on Police and Crime Commissioners to produce an Annual Report. The report should cover the exercise of the PCC’s functions in the financial year and the progress made in meeting the Police and Crime Plan. The report should be presented to the Police and Crime Panel for comment and recommendations, and then a formatted version produced and published.

The attached Annual Report covers the period April 2023 to March 2024 and is submitted to the Police and Crime Panel for comment.

Witnesses:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)

Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC)

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer (OPCC)

Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Chairman provided a brief outline of the purpose of the report. The Commissioner moved to take questions.

2. In reference to the Domestic Abuse Hub, which secured £2 million in funding from the Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Intervention Fund, a member noted that the standards published alongside the fund required intervention programmes to take place within a wider community response, be delivered by well-supported specialist staff, and benefit from monitoring and evaluation. The member asked how these interventions at the Surrey hub met these requirements.The PCC outlined the requirements were factored into the service specification and procurement process. Requirements were also embedded into the contractual obligations as part of receiving the funding. The commissioning team had lots of experience working with organisations to ensure contractual obligations were met and issues were tackled early. There were good relationships with funding partners which made a big difference.

3. The Head of Performance and Governance added that when the OPCC received devolved funding, as part of the standing allocation or through a competitive process, the Home Office and/or the Ministry of Justice paid a lot of attention to what was done with the funding. The commissioning team were required to provide regular, formal updates on how money was being spent. This, in addition to the procurement process and tendering exercises, was all factored into the final contract.

4. The member requested that in the Police and Crime Commissioner Annual Reports, a summary of what was achieved in-year with the Domestic Abuse Hub could be provided. The PCC confirmed this could be provided.

Cllr Mike Smith left the meeting at 11.07am.

5. A member, in reference to the report’s statement that “…we have made millions of pounds available to support victims of crime”, asked if the level of funding for these services had increased, decreased or remained the same in the last three years. The PCC explained that all the funding data was available in the annual financial statements on the OPCC’s website. The absolute level of funding available to the OPCC each year varied. In addition to funds received from the government, which was not yet known for future years, the OPCC and commissioning team bid for additional funds for areas such as Safer Streets and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB). The annual difference does not necessarily reflect a trajectory of the OPCC’s commitment or lack of commitment, as the funding was often outside their control, she added. It was not always easy to separate victim services from community safety or reducing reoffending, as support offered by any one service, such as the Domestic Abuse Hub, was often there to support a range of people such as both perpetrators and victims. For 2022/23, the OPCC funded local services to £5.4 million (m) and for 2023/24 this rose to £6.5m.

6. A member queried why the total funding being allocated to increase public safety in Walton, Redhill and Guildford was set to decrease in 2024/25 from the previous year. The member also asked if sufficient advances in community safety had been realised in these areas, and if this reduction could compromise the delivery of the Serious Violence Reduction Strategy. The PCC explained this was part of the Safer Streets Fund that came from the last government. The amount of money the OPCC could bid for each year varies, as do the issues the government want PCCs to prioritise. The government had revisited its financial commitment to some of the national funding, which included the previously agreed funding such as that for Safer Streets.  Surrey’s allocation had been reduced as a result. Regarding Walton, Redhill and Guildford, funding provided earlier in 2024 was to support the establishment of new infrastructure and some street scene changes. The OPCC worked closely with CSPs to identify specific areas of need and to ensure funding opportunities were going to the right places. The Safer Streets funding delivered was always done in conjunction with district and borough councils.

7. A member asked what work was being done to consult with the Voluntary and Community Frontline Sector (VCSF) or third sector experts in violence against women and girls (VAWG), such as organisations like End Violence Against Women. The member also asked if there was certainty that the work of other such organisations in this field would not be duplicated.The PCC explained that the OPCC had been commissioning services for victims of VAWG for over ten years, and had developed strong relationships, regionally, nationally and locally. The OPCC worked closely with national organisations such as Women’s Aid. Historically, local service providers were represented on police boards within the Force.

8. The Head of Performance and Governance added that when the OPCC first started commissioning services for victims of crime there were occasions where services were delivered by different government departments –particularly with services for victims of rape and sexual assault, there were occasional instances where money was provided by central government and a new service appeared with no ‘join-up’, they added, noting that this has ceased in the last five years. They stated that the government now appeared better at understanding the value PCCs could bring to commissioning, and consulted with PCCs. This meant that most of the funding for services flowed through PCC offices which helped with coordination between the government and the OPCC. The OPPC had good relationships with providers and other statutory agencies, such as joint commissioning with Surrey County Council Central and NHS England, for example with the recommissioning of sexual assault referral centres (SARCs). The OPCC was part of the process in terms of supporting services through funding and commissioning. He clarified that there is now much less duplication.

9. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC) raised that the OPCC was leading the way in many areas, particularly regarding VAWG. Generally, any action on VAWG in Surrey was in collaboration with charity partners and therefore not duplicating, they noted, adding that the OPCC supported rural-specific Independent Domestic Violence Advisors. As part of her role to lead on rural crime in Surrey, the DPCC sits on the National Rural Crime Network and had been asked to chair the working group nationally on rural domestic abuse.

10. The Chairman raised interest in rural crime, and suggested the OPCC could produce a future report on how this was going.

11. A member asked if the PCC could explain the choice to use a report format that did not involve Key Performance Indicators, RAG (red-amber-green) rating or other similar measures to track performance against stated objectives. The member referred to the example of Priority 1: Reducing violence against women and girls in the report, which did not state whether the violence had reduced or explained what the outcomes of the outlined activities were. The PCC explained that each priority in the report had a link and a QR code that took the reader to the Data Hub. Within this, there was a basket of measures for each element of the Police and Crime Plan, with both monthly and annual rolling-trend data. Including data in a static report document meant the data would be out of date by the time the report was published. The PCC felt the current report format was more transparent, rather than a simplistic RAG rating determined by the PCC. It also ensured that residents, stakeholders and Panel members had access to the latest data. It allowed for the OPCC to show comparisons with previous years’ data, providing a better sense of the overall trajectory. The OPCC had started using custom mapping tools that made use of the Police.uk Application Programming Interface (API) data, allowing users to plot crime, ASB and stop and search activity in their area. The PCC was not aware of other OPCCs in the country that had a Data Hub or was publishing the amount of accessible and transparent data as Surrey is and clarified that all the data on VAWG could be viewed on the Data Hub. The PCC noted when first appointed as the PCC she felt VAWG was not being reported on enough and wanted to see this increase. The Head of Performance and Governance outlined he was happy to take any suggestions panel members should have concerning the Data Hub and noted that it would be updated after the launch of the new Police and Crime Plan to ensure it was reflective.

12. The member expressed appreciation for the Data Hub but raised that the purpose of an annual report was to look at what happened in-year to compare to previous years.The PCC reiterated that all the data was available on the Data Hub and would prefer this approach over producing a report with out-of-date data. Another member suggested that a simplified RAG rating would still provide an opportunity to compare to previous years’ performance, even if it was out-of-date. The PCC took the comments on board but reiterated her previous answer.

Cllr Mike Smith returned to the meeting at 11.24am.

13. A member raised that the existing Police and Crime Plan listed numerous objectives within each of the five headlines and asked what approach had been taken to identify which objectives to highlight in the report, to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking. The PCC explained this had been discussed within the OPCC, particularly regarding the new Police and Crime Plan. The Head of Performance and Governance explained that when the Data Hub was launched there was a breakdown of the objectives/actions, both for the OPCC and the Force, and joint actions. The OPCC started to provide updates under each of the actions, but due to the number of actions it was difficult to keep track of them, so this is being reviewed. The OPCC would have a new set of actions in the new Police and Crime Plan. Around when the new Plan was published, the Head of Performance and Governance would return to the committee with a process to make it easier to understand the delivery of the actions. The OPCC did publish, in the annual report and the Data Hub, qualitative updates around specific areas of work.

14. The DPCC highlighted the work of the Surrey Youth Commission. The Youth Commission recently had their second annual big conversation conference where their findings for 2024, which would feed into the Police and Crime Plan, were delivered. The Youth Commission went through the objectives it set for the OPCC, the police and partners in 2023 and identified what was delivered and what needed continued work. The Youth Commission’s plan would be published in early winter 2024. The DPCC encouraged the Panel to read this and ensured it would be shared.

15. A member raised that with 4 years to go until the PCC was next up for election, there was an opportunity for the PCC to take a balanced approach and highlight areas that were going well and areas of frustration. The member raised an opinion that there was a tendency to pick the positives in the annual report. For example, the member referred to the report’s mention of the Surrey Police Inspections which referred the readers to the Data Hub, but the reality of the latest HMICFRS PEEL report was challenging. The PCC agreed that the PEEL report was challenging but explained it was not reflective of the situation at the time nor reflective of the current situation. The PCC wanted to ensure that data was available to the public and was not sure how many members of the public would read the annual report.

16. A member asked about supporting armed forces and veterans, and how schemes to help employ veterans into the Force were being promoted. The DPCC referred to both her and the PCCs desire to scrap the degree requirement for policing when first appointed into their roles. The DPCC felt this requirement did not entice veterans to join the police and this change had helped. Both herself and the PCC supported the new Armed Forces Support Group in Surrey Police, which worked collaboratively with Sussex Police. This group applied for Silver Level in the Defence Employer Recognition Scheme, on behalf of the Force, which was achieved earlier in 2024. This group attended career’s fairs, visited barracks and spoke to departing soldiers. The group often went to ‘drop-ins’ at the veterans’ hubs. The group was looking into a veteran-specific route into Surrey policing, but now the degree requirement was dropped and the presence of alternative routes into policing was more established, this may not be as needed. The DPCC agreed to check the status of this and provide an answer to the committee.

Actions/requests for further information:

• PCC/OPCC to provide update on what was achieved in-year on the work of the Surrey Domestic Violence Hub in the next Annual Report.

• OPCC to produce a future update on the progress made in regard to rural domestic abuse.

• The DPCC to provide a written a breakdown of veteran’s work and Surrey Police- specifically on the status of a potential Veteran-specific route into Surrey policing, which was previously being considered.