First reported 27 May 2025•Latest report 1 Dec 2025
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures of the named Right Care, Right Person implementation and attendance-decision process, including decision review arrangements, timeliness safeguards, operational guidance and public communications where these affect whether time-sensitive attendance is appropriately sought, considered or provided.
Not included
Excludes generic police or emergency-service attendance delays where the Right Care, Right Person process is not identified.
Excludes ordinary resource shortages, call handling or emergency response failures that are unrelated to Right Care, Right Person attendance decisions.
Excludes generic public communication deficiencies not specifically concerning implementation of Right Care, Right Person.
Excludes downstream clinical or rescue failures after an appropriate attendance decision has been made.
Reports
3
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
4
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2025–2025
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
8
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
College of Policing2
Durham Constabulary1
Greater Manchester Police1
Right Care, Right Person Strategic Oversight Board1
National policing body2
Police force2
Sub-organisation1
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
Failure to correctly distinguish between missing-person reporting and the Right Person Right Care initiative
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Review Missing Person and RCRP policies, consult stakeholders, and progress senior-officer sign-off to clarify their distinction and reduce operational confusion.
Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 December 2025.
Action
Deliver enhanced call-handler and supervisor training on vulnerability assessment, complex cases, escalation decisions, and supervisory quality assurance.
Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 December 2025.
Action
Update the FCCO Sherlock guidance system with revised instructions for distinguishing Missing Person and RCRP procedures.
Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 December 2025.
Manchester North
Concerns raised1
Failure to undertake proactive public communications about the implementation of Right Care Right Person
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Consider options with relevant agencies for addressing public and emergency-service access needs.
Stated by Kate GreenStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 October 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
National public-facing communications are unnecessary because local inter-agency pathways triage calls and determine the appropriate responding service.
Stated by College of PolicingExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Existing call-handler routing is considered sufficient, so external communications need not specify which emergency service the public should call.
Stated by GMCAExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
A public message encouraging families to call a locksmith is not being adopted because it may not be the best response for several reasons.
Stated by Kate GreenUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised2
Delays caused by supervisory review of negative “Right Care, Right Person” attendance decisions
Failure to authorise police attendance despite a reported real and immediate risk to life
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Action
Implement an initial intelligence-check process for every decision not to attend, followed by an expeditious supervisor review where non-attendance remains the decision.
Stated by Durham ConstabularyStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 May 2025.
Action
Escalate any second call about the same person within 12 hours to a supervisor for immediate further review, with additional calls subject to the same process.
Stated by Durham ConstabularyStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 May 2025.
Action
Collate concerns raised, review them against the toolkit and guidance, and amend the toolkit where necessary.
Stated by College of PolicingStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 May 2025.
Action
Continue reviewing toolkit content and provide forces with tools, training and support to implement and deliver Right Care, Right Person.
Stated by College of PolicingStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 May 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
A review found no significant failings in the use or implementation of the Right Care Right Person policy.
Stated by Police and Crime Commissioner for DurhamDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Operational decisions and responses under Right Care, Right Person are the responsibility of individual police forces, including Durham Constabulary.
Stated by College of PolicingRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The information supplied during the 16:44 call did not indicate a real and immediate risk to life requiring police attendance.
Stated by Durham ConstabularyDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures of the named Right Care, Right Person implementation and attendance-decision process, including decision review arrangements, timeliness safeguards, operational guidance and public communications where these affect whether time-sensitive attendance is appropriately sought, considered or provided.
