Agenda item

Representatives from Lancashire Constabulary Neighbourhood Policing Team will be in attendance at the meeting to report on PCSO deployment in the neighbourhood policing arena.

The original report to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 8 October 2015 is enclosed.

The Chair welcomed Inspector Charlie Cox and Simon Clark, Head of Health Environment and Neighbourhoods, Public Protection, Streetscene and Community to the meeting.

Members of the Committee were reminded that this item was a continuation of the item first discussed at the Committee on 8 October 2015.  Inspector Cox attended the meeting to answer questions on PCSOs deployment in the neighbourhood policing arena.

What information and data can be made available on PCSO activity, particularly in neighbourhoods?

Inspector Cox informed the Committee of the types of data which could be provided on PCSO activity -

·         Intelligence reports – PCSOs were expected to seek out quality intelligence

·         Number of Youth Referrals, in particular dealing with anti-social behaviour; the Early Action Team did a lot of work, the success of which could be gauged on the number of referrals being made

·         Number and types of incidents attended

·         Community engagement – the amount of contact made, particularly with harder to reach groups

·         Problem solving initiatives; this would be difficult to measure depending on the vulnerability, as to how a person could be helped was difficult to quantify.  It was suggested one measure could be tracked on the amount of calls made to emergency services, as a decrease in the amount of contact made would suggest that they were able to cope better

·         Early Action Team initiatives; this would be difficult to measure as there was a series of long term interventions; it was a good opportunity to identify individuals and work with them and their families.  

Given that there are 8 PCSOs employed on Early Action what impact is this likely to have on neighbourhood and high visibility policing?

It was acknowledged that there was presently 21 PCSOs in Chorley, following the restructure that figure was to be reduced to 19.  It was expected that the reduction would be managed through natural movement.

The Committee were advised that following a restructure, eight PCSOs had been moved to early action intervention work.  They were responsible for delivering the majority of the projects and initiatives including working with schools, working with vulnerable callers and the cadet system all of which was previously the responsibility of all the PCSOs.  To have a dedicated team dealing with early intervention work allowed more consistency in approach while continuing to link in with neighbourhood officers.  The change allowed the remaining PCSOs to concentrate on working in their neighbourhood and be more visible to the community.

In response to questions on how the number of PCSOs for each area was decided, Inspector Cox informed the Committee that each neighbourhood area was indexed on risk, threat, and vulnerability.  Four PCSOs had been designated to the priority areas –

·         Chorley East (1 PCSO)

·         Chorley South East including the Town Centre (2 PCSOs)

·         Chorley North West (1 PCSO)

The nine other areas, when indexed, shared PCSOs.  However, it was noted that the Community Beat managers in those areas remained the same.

How are deployment decisions made with regard to PCSO’s (what factors do you take in to account) and is there any flexibility regarding that deployment?

The majority of incidents were attended by PCSOs for that area.  However, if the PCSO for that area was unavailable or depending on the situation, if it was felt that a different PCSO would be more appropriate they would be deployed accordingly.

It was acknowledged that from time to time resources may need to be increased in an area based on risk and threat.  Although this meant taking some PCSOs away from their beat, it would not be for more than a day at a time. 

What influence can Chorley Council have on deployment decisions?

The Police worked closely with Chorley Council and provided reports each year which detailed the number of days lost due to redeployment.  Priorities needed to be made based on risk and vulnerability and it was inevitable that redeployment of officers would occur.

Members of the Committee asked a variety of questions which included –

·         The reduction in the number of PACT meetings and the need for PCSOs to provide a designated day and time when they were available to meet residents?

Inspector Cox felt that in some areas the PACT meetings were not as effective as in other areas.  However, members of the Committee were advised that if the meetings were effective, they would continue.  It was also expected that the PCSOs would be proactive and talk to residents ‘in the know’ to pick up on issues that were happening in the neighbourhood area.  It was suggested that the PCSOs attended other community meetings such as parish/town council meetings.  This would allow members of the public to report matters of concern which they may not feel able to report to the Police more formally.

·         Was the money from the residents in Chorley, being spent in Chorley or elsewhere?

Inspector Cox confirmed that all money provided by the residents of Chorley was being spent in Chorley.

The Head of Health Environment and Neighbourhoods, Public Protection Streetscene and Community confirmed that in previous years the number of days lost due to vacancies or staff sickness, the Council had either received a refund or a reduction for the following year for the difference.  However, in the last two years, there had been no overall loss.

·         How quickly are vacancies filled?

Members of the Committee were advised that each year there were two windows of opportunity to recruit and train PCSOs.  Once trained the PCSOs would be deployed to fill any vacancies.  However, once all PCSOs had been deployed, any vacancies would remain until the next tranche of recruitments had been trained.

AGREED – That the officers of the Council continued to monitor the number of days lost due to vacancies or sickness, compared with any refund or reduction made by the Police.