I first came across the internet acronym 'irl' many years ago but it was not long after I began living some of my life on line. Part of who I am, my identity exists in the virtual world of the internet. There are large bits of me, as were, held in binary code on a whole variety of servers. Some of this is current, some of this is historical. I have friends on the internet whom I will probably never meet in real life. We exchange greetings. I have been trolled and verbally abused. I have probably made thousands of financial transactions. Last week I initiated court action against a person online. Last night I watched ten minutes of a programme about One Direction's fan base and how they felt connected to their idols in ways that teenage fans of Donny Osmond and David Cassidy could only have dreamt of...
In recent weeks, there have been several tragic stories of young people being driven to suicide by abuse and threats via the internet. No doubt, although much less reported, many hundreds of people will parted with thousands of pounds via various kinds of internet scams. Probably also a fair few (dozens perhaps?) of credit cards will have been stolen, skimmed or cloned and used to pay for all many of items from airline tickets and tube fares. Also sadly some more children will have been groomed and put in danger of abuse. I could go on.
But who polices this virtual world?
Who has the resources not only to tackle such crimes when they occur but also the resources to reduce the risk of such crimes in the future? Who has the ear of the internet industry be they service providers, web designers, cloud managers and all manner of commercial people who make the internet work, so that robust preventative action can be comprehensively taken? What is the internet equivalent of a car immobiliser?
Who is taking a joined up strategic view on all this?
And yes I know we have CEOP and Action Fraud, and probably other units that I do not know about but I do wonder whether we now need a single joined up virtual police service to assemble all these resources together into one centre of excellence? Just like we have the British Transport Police (which in my view ought to look after policing at all airports and sea ports too - but that is another blog post) why do we not have the British Online Police Service?
And to complete the picture as I suspect many of these crimes overlap, I have added in the idea of 'remote' crime which would include in my book rogue phone calls and mail order scams (etc.) which also cause huge distress.
And so I arrive at the idea of the British Remote & Online Police Service as a new legal entity, probably with new enforcement powers, a governance structure that includes the internet industry (similar to BTP) and clear partnership liaison with 'irl' police services and financial regulators. In these straightened times this will need some imaginative sources of funding (a broad band / junk mail tax perhaps?) to ensure it is adequately resourced.
Can I interest one of the major political parties in this idea in time for the next election? Or even sooner perhaps...?
Monday, 19 August 2013
Thursday, 25 July 2013
'Light touch' police and crime panels must shift scrutiny powers up a gear
Yesterday, The Guardian Public Leaders Network published my article about how Police & Crime Panels need to shift up a gear or three in their scrutiny of PCCs, especially their decisions about scarce resource allocation. You can read the whole article here.
In the article I say:
So how is your PCP doing..?
In the article I say:
The question is, how well the police and crime panels (PCPs) will scrutinise these resource decisions over the coming months. Chief constables will be using all their considerable skills to ensure good and professional decisions are made about the operational deployment of tight police resources but they will be subject to the policy influence of their PCCs – and that influence needs to be carefully unpicked by the PCPs...
So how is your PCP doing..?
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
The politics of stats, trends & probability
I am no statistical expert and it is many years since I studied the application of Student’s T test, two tails and correlation coefficients to psychological experiments. But I have retained just about enough of what I learnt then and since (about targets, trend analysis and statistical process control) to be pretty darn fed up with how most politicians and members of the media treat data.
The ridiculous way in which the media and certain sections of the government are treating the results of Dr Bruce Keogh’s investigation into hospital care is an object lesson in how complex data sets are twisted into political rhetoric. Some of this is clearly about politics and for that I can almost forgive them. But when it comes to the proportion of this twisting that is down to plain ordinary ignorance, I really can’t!
(And if you want to know what I mean about the Keogh report, read this blog post and please read it carefully.)
We entrust politicians with a huge amount of power which they wield on our behalf. They spend vast amounts of money, our money, on projects which the evidence shows (if they looked closely) were never going to work. It is time this ended. All politicians ought to have a good introduction to stats, trends and probability (and scientific methods, while they are about it) so that they are better able to make decisions that will actually make a real difference.
Now I am not saying that all politicians and members of the media are ignorant of such matters, but many are. The information on Payment by Results that I have uncovered in the last few days disturbs me. In fact it horrifies me that we may well be paying service providers for results that could simply be chance results rather than the robust outcomes of a better service.
I do not intend to make this blog post a long lesson in stats. Other people can do that far better than me. But here is just one idea: if you were to throw a dice a couple of dozen times, you would expect the numbers to come up in reasonably even quantities. Perhaps the four might have come up 5 times and the three just once. But you would not presume the dice was loaded. However, if you threw the dice a hundred times and the three only came up (say) 5 times and the four came up (say) 26 times you would begin to think something odd was happening.
Stats is simply about measuring when the threshold between chance and a real variation (a loaded dice in this example) is crossed. Without statistics, you cannot know whether an occurrence of (say) less teenage pregnancy (etc. etc.) is just a random chance or that something ‘significant’ has happened (i.e. it is NOT chance, or at least very unlikely to be).
I would hope that most people reading this, get this. But do most politicians? And journalists? What do you think?
And I won’t even start to talk about about systems theory, the role of blame and the fact that complex things really are complex!! (I will leave that for another blog post.)
But please… please can we have less of the ignorance around trends, evidence and chance occurrences and a bit more understanding that ‘wicked’ social (and medical) problems require some pretty darn ‘wicked’ solutions…
The ridiculous way in which the media and certain sections of the government are treating the results of Dr Bruce Keogh’s investigation into hospital care is an object lesson in how complex data sets are twisted into political rhetoric. Some of this is clearly about politics and for that I can almost forgive them. But when it comes to the proportion of this twisting that is down to plain ordinary ignorance, I really can’t!
(And if you want to know what I mean about the Keogh report, read this blog post and please read it carefully.)
We entrust politicians with a huge amount of power which they wield on our behalf. They spend vast amounts of money, our money, on projects which the evidence shows (if they looked closely) were never going to work. It is time this ended. All politicians ought to have a good introduction to stats, trends and probability (and scientific methods, while they are about it) so that they are better able to make decisions that will actually make a real difference.
Now I am not saying that all politicians and members of the media are ignorant of such matters, but many are. The information on Payment by Results that I have uncovered in the last few days disturbs me. In fact it horrifies me that we may well be paying service providers for results that could simply be chance results rather than the robust outcomes of a better service.
I do not intend to make this blog post a long lesson in stats. Other people can do that far better than me. But here is just one idea: if you were to throw a dice a couple of dozen times, you would expect the numbers to come up in reasonably even quantities. Perhaps the four might have come up 5 times and the three just once. But you would not presume the dice was loaded. However, if you threw the dice a hundred times and the three only came up (say) 5 times and the four came up (say) 26 times you would begin to think something odd was happening.
Stats is simply about measuring when the threshold between chance and a real variation (a loaded dice in this example) is crossed. Without statistics, you cannot know whether an occurrence of (say) less teenage pregnancy (etc. etc.) is just a random chance or that something ‘significant’ has happened (i.e. it is NOT chance, or at least very unlikely to be).
I would hope that most people reading this, get this. But do most politicians? And journalists? What do you think?
And I won’t even start to talk about about systems theory, the role of blame and the fact that complex things really are complex!! (I will leave that for another blog post.)
But please… please can we have less of the ignorance around trends, evidence and chance occurrences and a bit more understanding that ‘wicked’ social (and medical) problems require some pretty darn ‘wicked’ solutions…
Friday, 12 July 2013
Tilting at lamposts
Yesterday I received a response to my inquiries concerning the pilot data being used by the MoJ to support the extension of Payment by Results. I have reprinted the letter I received in the blog post below.
This blog contains some commentary on the replies I received.
Is that a solid basis for the distribution of taxpayers' money?
This blog contains some commentary on the replies I received.
- The Moj used Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act to not answer two of my questions. They say that the information I was seeking is about to be published on July 25. I am prepared to wait until then before deciding to appeal their reply or not.
- I asked why they published the results early, they said they did this "to ensure the information was made public as soon as it was available" despite admitting in other answers that it was incomplete. I suspect they wanted to get in some 'good news' before the summer vacation and in advance of CSR negotiations. But in my view, it looks shoddy and is evidence of using data and stats for political purposes. However, I guess all governments do that... don't they?
- Their answers do seem to assert that they have sought to compare like with like in terms of cohort comparisons.
- Their answer to question 4 does evidence the fact that this data is incomplete and premature, in my view
- They originally said that a key difference between the cohort is that in this group "reconvictions only count offences for which the offender was convicted at court, whereas the National Statistics proven re-offending measure also includes out of court disposals (cautions)”. I asked what the impact of that difference was likely to be. They referred me to "Table B3 of annex B from the MoJ’s proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2". I have looked at this table and it is not entirely clear so I think I am going to have go back to them on this and seek further clarification. But do note that they said "We have not produced alternative interim figures on what the impact would be if different rules (such as including cautions) had applied". Which seems a bit sloppy to me. This is a critical difference after all and I suspect that if the data was showing not in favour of the pilot providers, they would be seeking further clarification!
- I asked whether the comparison groups (to evidence that the pilot intervention was in fact working) were selected using some kind of randomised selection. They said "The control group will be selected by an Independent Assessor using Propensity Score Matching (PSM), the methodology for which has been published at: Peterborough Social Impact Bond: an independent ... - Gov.uk" So the answer is 'NO': comparator groups will be selected by 'independent' assessor (being paid by the government, I assume). I looked the reference document and here is a quote from it: "It should be noted that, unlike random control allocation, PSM cannot take account of unmeasured differences which may account for variation in reconviction aside from ‘treatment received’" Uh huh. But it goes onto assert that: "However, PSM [propensity score matching] is widely regarded as one of the best ways of matching quasi-experimentally (Rosenbaum, 2002), and it has been increasingly used in a criminological context (e.g. Wermink et al., 2010)." So that is alright then. Excuse me while I give you this new medicine that has been quasi-experimentally tested on people who are sort of similar to you...
- I asked "For Doncaster, success “will be determined by comparison with the reconviction rate in the baseline year of 2009”. How will this accommodate national and/or local trends in (say) sentencing practice or levels of crime?". They replied "The five percentage point reduction target was agreed after analysis of historic reconviction rates established that this would illustrate a demonstrable difference which could be attributed to the new system and not just natural variation." That is not an answer to my question, I will need to go back to them on this.
- I asked about the 6 versus 12 month comparison and how the headline data (based on six months) was going to look against the usual (12 month) data. They said in reply "The statistical notice made clear the limitations of the information presented and the care that should be taken in interpreting these interim figures." Remind me - was that subtlety in the press releases that went out when this interim data was released...?
- They missed the point completely on my question about seasonality...
- Please read their answer to my question about why 19 month data. Please let me know what you think. I am thinking 'wool', 'eyes' and 'what do you really mean?!'
- The maths question is funny. They said "The figures presented were the rounded versions of the actual figures, which were 68.53 and 79.29". So I have done the calculations again and the result I get this time is 15.7. So they are sort of correct - but why leave out the first decimal point?
- I asked about statistical significance (the test of whether a difference is just a chance difference or one that indicates a real effect is in play). This is what they said "We have not carried out statistical significance tests on the interim figures because, when it comes to the final results, neither pilot will be assessed on the basis of whether they have achieved a statistically significant change."
We have not carried out statistical significance tests on the interim figures because, when it comes to the final results, neither pilot will be assessed on the basis of whether they have achieved a statistically significant change.So, Payment by Results could well be based upon purely random chance events that may just have happened.
Is that a solid basis for the distribution of taxpayers' money?
Payment by Results, lamp posts... lit?
The day after #tagginggate you would expect me to be somewhat sceptical about how well government manages complex contracts with external suppliers. Moreover, of course, questions remain about how well the external suppliers manage these contracts too! But that is for another blog post one day.
But meanwhile, I received a reply to my questions about the Payment by Results pilots (and if you thought tagging contacts were complex...!). Below I have reprinted in full the reply I have received from the relevant person in the Ministry of Justice. It is already quite a long piece, so I will leave my commentary to another posting. Please read what they have to say critically - you will be able to then to see whether your thoughts match, contradict or add to my interpretations.
Dear Mr Harvey,
Thank you for your email of 13th June 2013, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
(I have left out their repetition of the questions - as they are shown below anyway)
I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, however, please be aware that questions 15 and 16 of your request [these are the questions in question: 15. Given that you must have the data for Peterborough for the missing 19 month period (September 08 to March 11), and acknowledging that this overlaps with the pilot beginning, please could I have this data nonetheless.
16. Likewise, please could I have the data for the quarter beginning April 2012] have been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the remaining questions have been dealt with as normal business.
Section 84 of the Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of an HR policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place.
Following our assessment of your correspondence we believe that questions 1-14 and 17-21 relate to general questions and not recorded information.
The responses are as follows:
Questions 15 and 16 – Dealt with under the FOIA
I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, but it is exempt from disclosure because it is intended for future publication.
We are not obliged to provide information that is intended for future publication (section 22 of the Act). In line with the terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, we have considered whether it would be in the public interest for us to provide you with the information ahead of publication, despite the exemption being applicable. In this case, I have concluded that the public interest favours withholding the information.
You can find out more about Section 22 by reading the extract from the Act and some guidance points we consider when applying this exemption, attached at the end of this letter.
You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/22.
When assessing whether or not it was in the public interest to disclose the information to you, we took into account the following factors:
Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
• There are public arguments in favour of disclosure of this information at the present time. Disclosure would for example improve transparency in the operations of Government, and of the justice system in particular.
Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information
• There are public interest arguments against disclosure of this information at the present time. These arguments include that is in the public interest to adhere to the existing publication process for official statistics, which includes time for the data to be collated and properly verified.
• It is also in the public interest to ensure that the publication of official information is a properly planned and managed process, to ensure that data are accurate once it is placed into the public domain. It is also in the public interest to ensure that the information is available to all members of the public at the same time, and premature publication could undermine the principle of making the information available to all at the same time through the official publication process.
We reached the view that, on balance, the public interest is better served by withholding this information under Section 22 of the Act at this time.
You may be interested to know that this information is due to be published in the MoJ’s Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly bulletin on 25th July 2013 at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/reoffending-statistics
[It seems reasonable to wait until 25/7/13 to decide whether I will appeal this decision or not.]
Questions 1-14 and 17-21 – Dealt with as normal business
As mentioned above, we have dealt with these questions under the provision of normal business.
1. The pilots began on 9 September 2010 and the 1 October 2011 (Peterborough and Doncaster respectively.) Please can you qualify “began”?
This means that each pilot included eligible offenders (as defined in Table A1, Annex A of the statistical notice) discharged from the pilot prison from these dates onwards.
2. Given that “the next Proven Reoffending Statistics quarterly bulletin will not be published until 25 July 2013”, why did you publish your results today rather than a few weeks from now?
As set out in the publication, rather than wait until 25 July, the results were published in this ad-hoc bulletin to ensure the information was made public as soon as it was available. In accordance with the Official Statistics Code of Practice the publication date was pre-announced by MoJ statisticians in May 2013. The next Proven Re-offending Statistics quarterly bulletin on 25 July will contain updated interim figures for the pilots, with quarterly updates thereafter.
3. I understand that “the interim re-conviction figures being published in this statistical bulletin are based on periods half the length of those that will be used for the final results” – daft question I am sure, but presumably this applies to both the ‘experimental’ subject averages and the national comparators?
Yes, the interim re-conviction figures presented in this publication have been produced in exactly the same way for each pilot prison and its national comparator.
4. You say that these “interim 6 month re-conviction figures are available for almost all of Peterborough cohort 1 (around 850 offenders) and half of Doncaster cohort 1 (around 700 offenders)”, please can you explain what has happened to the other portions of the cohorts and why they are included?
The interim figures have been provided for as much of each cohort as possible, but at this stage they do not include all offenders in cohort 1 of either pilot. This is because some offenders were released from prison too recently to be measured on this basis (the 6 month re-offending window and 3 month waiting period have not yet elapsed). However, they will be included in the interim figures in future as soon as enough time has elapsed to allow us to measure them on a consistent basis.
5. In terms of methodology, you say “offenders enter the PbR pilots after their first eligible release from the prison within the cohort period”, please can you explain “eligible” in this context and whether the national comparator figures also cover the same “eligible” group?
Not all offenders released from the pilot prisons are eligible for the pilots. The Peterborough pilot for example, only includes adult males released from a custodial sentence of less than 12 months, so a prisoner released from a sentence of 2 years would not be eligible. For each pilot, the national comparator figures have been produced on the same basis using the same eligibility criteria. More details on eligibility are available in Table A1, Annex A of the interim re-conviction figures publication:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/interim-re-conviction-figures-for-the-peterborough-and-doncaster-payment-by-results-pilots
6. You explain that the key difference is that reconvictions only count offences for which the offender was convicted at court, whereas the National Statistics proven re-offending measure also includes out of court disposals (cautions)” and “Additionally, there are a number of other differences between the pilots and the
7. National Statistics proven re-offending measure in terms of which offenders are counted within the cohort”. Are you able to say what difference these differences might make to the figures? For example, what number of offenders per hundred are usually subject to a caution (or similar disposal) as opposed to a court conviction?
We have not produced alternative interim figures on what the impact would be if different rules (such as including cautions) had applied. However for information on the effect cautions have on re-offending, please see Table B3 of annex B from the MoJ’s proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
8. Again I assume that given that the “Peterborough pilot includes offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas the Doncaster pilot includes all offenders released from custody regardless of sentence length”, the national comparisons are on a like for like basis?
Yes, the figures for the national comparisons are calculated on the same basis as their respective pilots.
9. You explain that the “success of each Peterborough cohort will be determined by comparison with a control group (of comparable offenders from across the country)”. How will this ‘control’ group be selected to ensure there is no inadvertent or unknown bias? Indeed was there (will there be) any form of randomised control trial element to either of these two trials (and extensions)? If not, what is your considered professional judgement as a statistician as to the validity of these results to guide future practice?
The control group will be selected by an Independent Assessor using Propensity Score Matching (PSM), the methodology for which has been published at:
Peterborough Social Impact Bond: an independent ... - Gov.uk
10. For Doncaster, success “will be determined by comparison with the reconviction rate in the baseline year of 2009”. How will this accommodate national and/or local trends in (say) sentencing practice or levels of crime?
The five percentage point reduction target was agreed after analysis of historic reconviction rates established that this would illustrate a demonstrable difference which could be attributed to the new system and not just natural variation.
11. Given that normally reconviction rates are measured on a 12 month basis and these interim results are measured on a 6 month one, how much is that likely (based on past data) to have depressed the reconviction rates?
The figures presented are our best assessment of change in re-conviction figures at this time and have been provided as an early indication of each pilot’s progress. It is not possible to say at this stage what the final 12 month re-conviction figures will be, though naturally the final 12 month re-conviction figures will be higher than the interim 6 month figures simply because offenders will have had more time in which to commit offences. The statistical notice made clear the limitations of the information presented and the care that should be taken in interpreting these interim figures.
12. You say “Whereas in this publication, to eliminate the risk of seasonality and enable a consistent comparison over time, all figures relate to offenders released in the 6 month period from October to March”. I may well be missing something here, but by only using the six winter months, are you not likely to increase the risk of a seasonal effect in the data? Please explain further.
We would be risking a seasonal effect if we took the 6 winter months for the pilot period and compared them to a different period in other years. For example if we had compared October 11 to March 12 with January to June 2009, it would be possible that any changes were simply the result of seasonal effects rather than a real change in re-offending. Whereas by only comparing the Oct-Mar pilot period with other Oct-Mar periods, we are comparing like with like and have therefore eliminated the risk of seasonality
13. Given that the Peterborough cohort finished on 1/7/12, and allowing for the 6 months plus 3 (for court delays), this takes us up to March 2013. So on this basis, why have the last three months of data (April, May and June 2012) been excluded? (As far as I can see there is no explanation of this decision, but forgive me if I have overlooked it.)
Before releasing official statistics the information needs to be collated, processed and quality assured. Re-conviction data for offenders discharged in April, May and June for the Peterborough pilot had not been fully collated, processed and quality assured in time for this publication. However, re-conviction figures for the full Peterborough cohort (including all releases up to the end of June 2012) will be included in the next quarterly update to be published in July.
14. Given that I assume that data is ordinarily collected on a quarterly basis, it would have been helpful to have presented your data in a similar way so that trends could be spotted over time rather than use the fairly arbitrary 19 month period to show the data. Why did you present it this way? Please could I have the data on a quarterly basis.
The 19 month period was chosen as this shows figures for as much of the cohort as possible as explained in the statistical notice. It is not an arbitrary cut off, but simply the period of the cohort for which we were able to provide interim re-conviction figures.
The interim figures were published as soon as the MoJ Chief Statistician judged that we were in a position to produce statistically robust interim re-conviction figures, meaning that the number of offenders being reported on was a large enough sample for each pilot. We have not produced any figures based on quarterly cohorts because the numbers involved would be too small to give statistically robust information.
Additionally, reporting on the cohort by quarter would not show a like for like comparison across each quarter, and would therefore be more likely to confuse than to provide meaningful information. The reason for this is that offenders join the cohort after their first eligible discharge within the period. However some offenders will be released from the prison more than once within the cohort period. These more prolific offenders (who are more likely to re-offend) would therefore be more likely to appear in earlier quarters than later quarters.
15. Given that you must have the data for Peterborough for the missing 19 month period (September 08 to March 11), and acknowledging that this overlaps with the pilot beginning, please could I have this data nonetheless.
See earlier response.
16. Likewise, please could I have the data for the quarter beginning April 2012.
See earlier response.
17. You say “Nationally the equivalent figures show a rise of 16% from 69 to 79 re-conviction events per 100 offenders”. How do you get 16%? I can see a rise of 10 ‘points’ or a rise of (10/69*100) 14.5%.
The figures presented were the rounded versions of the actual figures, which were 68.53 and 79.29.
18. (As an aside, this is quite a large rise nationally in re-conviction rates comparing the period from just before the last election to period after. Have national rates continued to rise or have they levelled off now?)
Re-offending rates for all adult offenders have barely changed in a decade. Please see the quarterly re-offending bulletin for information on national re-offending levels.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
19. You say “these interim figures show a fall in the frequency of re-conviction events at Peterborough” which is drop from 41.6% to 39.2%. At what threshold of probability is this statistically significant?
We have not carried out statistical significance tests on the interim figures because, when it comes to the final results, neither pilot will be assessed on the basis of whether they have achieved a statistically significant change. Peterborough will be assessed by comparison with a national matched control group using a PSM methodology. Doncaster will be assessed against a baseline of calendar year 2009.
20. Please can you confirm that the OGRS scores cited relate to the cohort groups in both Peterborough and Doncaster (rather than all offenders who were released)?
The OGRS scores relate to the offenders within each cohort.
21. Why are the national re-conviction scores given next to Doncaster data (which average 32.9%) differ from the scores given next to the Peterborough data (average 37.9%)? I now the period is different and there is some missing data, but this still seems like a large difference…
The criteria used to create the national comparator figures for the Peterborough and Doncaster prisons are different because the 2 pilots have different criteria. For example, the national figures for the Peterborough comparison will only include adult males released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas the Doncaster comparison includes all prisoners released from custody regardless of sentence length. For more information on the differences between the two pilots please see Table A1, Annex A of the interim re-conviction figures statistical notice.
Generally, re-conviction rates are higher for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than a 12 months than for all offenders released from prison. Hence the national comparator group for Peterborough have higher re-conviction rates than the national comparator group for Doncaster.
You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.
I will stop there - the rest is pretty standard boilerplate about how to appeal etc. I will say thank you to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services (who signed the letter) for their work in responding to my challenges.
So what do you think about these answers to my questions?
What would you comment upon?
But meanwhile, I received a reply to my questions about the Payment by Results pilots (and if you thought tagging contacts were complex...!). Below I have reprinted in full the reply I have received from the relevant person in the Ministry of Justice. It is already quite a long piece, so I will leave my commentary to another posting. Please read what they have to say critically - you will be able to then to see whether your thoughts match, contradict or add to my interpretations.
Dear Mr Harvey,
Thank you for your email of 13th June 2013, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
(I have left out their repetition of the questions - as they are shown below anyway)
I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, however, please be aware that questions 15 and 16 of your request [these are the questions in question: 15. Given that you must have the data for Peterborough for the missing 19 month period (September 08 to March 11), and acknowledging that this overlaps with the pilot beginning, please could I have this data nonetheless.
16. Likewise, please could I have the data for the quarter beginning April 2012] have been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the remaining questions have been dealt with as normal business.
Section 84 of the Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of an HR policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place.
Following our assessment of your correspondence we believe that questions 1-14 and 17-21 relate to general questions and not recorded information.
The responses are as follows:
Questions 15 and 16 – Dealt with under the FOIA
I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, but it is exempt from disclosure because it is intended for future publication.
We are not obliged to provide information that is intended for future publication (section 22 of the Act). In line with the terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, we have considered whether it would be in the public interest for us to provide you with the information ahead of publication, despite the exemption being applicable. In this case, I have concluded that the public interest favours withholding the information.
You can find out more about Section 22 by reading the extract from the Act and some guidance points we consider when applying this exemption, attached at the end of this letter.
You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/22.
When assessing whether or not it was in the public interest to disclose the information to you, we took into account the following factors:
Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
• There are public arguments in favour of disclosure of this information at the present time. Disclosure would for example improve transparency in the operations of Government, and of the justice system in particular.
Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information
• There are public interest arguments against disclosure of this information at the present time. These arguments include that is in the public interest to adhere to the existing publication process for official statistics, which includes time for the data to be collated and properly verified.
• It is also in the public interest to ensure that the publication of official information is a properly planned and managed process, to ensure that data are accurate once it is placed into the public domain. It is also in the public interest to ensure that the information is available to all members of the public at the same time, and premature publication could undermine the principle of making the information available to all at the same time through the official publication process.
We reached the view that, on balance, the public interest is better served by withholding this information under Section 22 of the Act at this time.
You may be interested to know that this information is due to be published in the MoJ’s Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly bulletin on 25th July 2013 at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/reoffending-statistics
[It seems reasonable to wait until 25/7/13 to decide whether I will appeal this decision or not.]
Questions 1-14 and 17-21 – Dealt with as normal business
As mentioned above, we have dealt with these questions under the provision of normal business.
1. The pilots began on 9 September 2010 and the 1 October 2011 (Peterborough and Doncaster respectively.) Please can you qualify “began”?
This means that each pilot included eligible offenders (as defined in Table A1, Annex A of the statistical notice) discharged from the pilot prison from these dates onwards.
2. Given that “the next Proven Reoffending Statistics quarterly bulletin will not be published until 25 July 2013”, why did you publish your results today rather than a few weeks from now?
As set out in the publication, rather than wait until 25 July, the results were published in this ad-hoc bulletin to ensure the information was made public as soon as it was available. In accordance with the Official Statistics Code of Practice the publication date was pre-announced by MoJ statisticians in May 2013. The next Proven Re-offending Statistics quarterly bulletin on 25 July will contain updated interim figures for the pilots, with quarterly updates thereafter.
3. I understand that “the interim re-conviction figures being published in this statistical bulletin are based on periods half the length of those that will be used for the final results” – daft question I am sure, but presumably this applies to both the ‘experimental’ subject averages and the national comparators?
Yes, the interim re-conviction figures presented in this publication have been produced in exactly the same way for each pilot prison and its national comparator.
4. You say that these “interim 6 month re-conviction figures are available for almost all of Peterborough cohort 1 (around 850 offenders) and half of Doncaster cohort 1 (around 700 offenders)”, please can you explain what has happened to the other portions of the cohorts and why they are included?
The interim figures have been provided for as much of each cohort as possible, but at this stage they do not include all offenders in cohort 1 of either pilot. This is because some offenders were released from prison too recently to be measured on this basis (the 6 month re-offending window and 3 month waiting period have not yet elapsed). However, they will be included in the interim figures in future as soon as enough time has elapsed to allow us to measure them on a consistent basis.
5. In terms of methodology, you say “offenders enter the PbR pilots after their first eligible release from the prison within the cohort period”, please can you explain “eligible” in this context and whether the national comparator figures also cover the same “eligible” group?
Not all offenders released from the pilot prisons are eligible for the pilots. The Peterborough pilot for example, only includes adult males released from a custodial sentence of less than 12 months, so a prisoner released from a sentence of 2 years would not be eligible. For each pilot, the national comparator figures have been produced on the same basis using the same eligibility criteria. More details on eligibility are available in Table A1, Annex A of the interim re-conviction figures publication:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/interim-re-conviction-figures-for-the-peterborough-and-doncaster-payment-by-results-pilots
6. You explain that the key difference is that reconvictions only count offences for which the offender was convicted at court, whereas the National Statistics proven re-offending measure also includes out of court disposals (cautions)” and “Additionally, there are a number of other differences between the pilots and the
7. National Statistics proven re-offending measure in terms of which offenders are counted within the cohort”. Are you able to say what difference these differences might make to the figures? For example, what number of offenders per hundred are usually subject to a caution (or similar disposal) as opposed to a court conviction?
We have not produced alternative interim figures on what the impact would be if different rules (such as including cautions) had applied. However for information on the effect cautions have on re-offending, please see Table B3 of annex B from the MoJ’s proven re-offending statistics quarterly bulletin:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
8. Again I assume that given that the “Peterborough pilot includes offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas the Doncaster pilot includes all offenders released from custody regardless of sentence length”, the national comparisons are on a like for like basis?
Yes, the figures for the national comparisons are calculated on the same basis as their respective pilots.
9. You explain that the “success of each Peterborough cohort will be determined by comparison with a control group (of comparable offenders from across the country)”. How will this ‘control’ group be selected to ensure there is no inadvertent or unknown bias? Indeed was there (will there be) any form of randomised control trial element to either of these two trials (and extensions)? If not, what is your considered professional judgement as a statistician as to the validity of these results to guide future practice?
The control group will be selected by an Independent Assessor using Propensity Score Matching (PSM), the methodology for which has been published at:
Peterborough Social Impact Bond: an independent ... - Gov.uk
10. For Doncaster, success “will be determined by comparison with the reconviction rate in the baseline year of 2009”. How will this accommodate national and/or local trends in (say) sentencing practice or levels of crime?
The five percentage point reduction target was agreed after analysis of historic reconviction rates established that this would illustrate a demonstrable difference which could be attributed to the new system and not just natural variation.
11. Given that normally reconviction rates are measured on a 12 month basis and these interim results are measured on a 6 month one, how much is that likely (based on past data) to have depressed the reconviction rates?
The figures presented are our best assessment of change in re-conviction figures at this time and have been provided as an early indication of each pilot’s progress. It is not possible to say at this stage what the final 12 month re-conviction figures will be, though naturally the final 12 month re-conviction figures will be higher than the interim 6 month figures simply because offenders will have had more time in which to commit offences. The statistical notice made clear the limitations of the information presented and the care that should be taken in interpreting these interim figures.
12. You say “Whereas in this publication, to eliminate the risk of seasonality and enable a consistent comparison over time, all figures relate to offenders released in the 6 month period from October to March”. I may well be missing something here, but by only using the six winter months, are you not likely to increase the risk of a seasonal effect in the data? Please explain further.
We would be risking a seasonal effect if we took the 6 winter months for the pilot period and compared them to a different period in other years. For example if we had compared October 11 to March 12 with January to June 2009, it would be possible that any changes were simply the result of seasonal effects rather than a real change in re-offending. Whereas by only comparing the Oct-Mar pilot period with other Oct-Mar periods, we are comparing like with like and have therefore eliminated the risk of seasonality
13. Given that the Peterborough cohort finished on 1/7/12, and allowing for the 6 months plus 3 (for court delays), this takes us up to March 2013. So on this basis, why have the last three months of data (April, May and June 2012) been excluded? (As far as I can see there is no explanation of this decision, but forgive me if I have overlooked it.)
Before releasing official statistics the information needs to be collated, processed and quality assured. Re-conviction data for offenders discharged in April, May and June for the Peterborough pilot had not been fully collated, processed and quality assured in time for this publication. However, re-conviction figures for the full Peterborough cohort (including all releases up to the end of June 2012) will be included in the next quarterly update to be published in July.
14. Given that I assume that data is ordinarily collected on a quarterly basis, it would have been helpful to have presented your data in a similar way so that trends could be spotted over time rather than use the fairly arbitrary 19 month period to show the data. Why did you present it this way? Please could I have the data on a quarterly basis.
The 19 month period was chosen as this shows figures for as much of the cohort as possible as explained in the statistical notice. It is not an arbitrary cut off, but simply the period of the cohort for which we were able to provide interim re-conviction figures.
The interim figures were published as soon as the MoJ Chief Statistician judged that we were in a position to produce statistically robust interim re-conviction figures, meaning that the number of offenders being reported on was a large enough sample for each pilot. We have not produced any figures based on quarterly cohorts because the numbers involved would be too small to give statistically robust information.
Additionally, reporting on the cohort by quarter would not show a like for like comparison across each quarter, and would therefore be more likely to confuse than to provide meaningful information. The reason for this is that offenders join the cohort after their first eligible discharge within the period. However some offenders will be released from the prison more than once within the cohort period. These more prolific offenders (who are more likely to re-offend) would therefore be more likely to appear in earlier quarters than later quarters.
15. Given that you must have the data for Peterborough for the missing 19 month period (September 08 to March 11), and acknowledging that this overlaps with the pilot beginning, please could I have this data nonetheless.
See earlier response.
16. Likewise, please could I have the data for the quarter beginning April 2012.
See earlier response.
17. You say “Nationally the equivalent figures show a rise of 16% from 69 to 79 re-conviction events per 100 offenders”. How do you get 16%? I can see a rise of 10 ‘points’ or a rise of (10/69*100) 14.5%.
The figures presented were the rounded versions of the actual figures, which were 68.53 and 79.29.
18. (As an aside, this is quite a large rise nationally in re-conviction rates comparing the period from just before the last election to period after. Have national rates continued to rise or have they levelled off now?)
Re-offending rates for all adult offenders have barely changed in a decade. Please see the quarterly re-offending bulletin for information on national re-offending levels.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
19. You say “these interim figures show a fall in the frequency of re-conviction events at Peterborough” which is drop from 41.6% to 39.2%. At what threshold of probability is this statistically significant?
We have not carried out statistical significance tests on the interim figures because, when it comes to the final results, neither pilot will be assessed on the basis of whether they have achieved a statistically significant change. Peterborough will be assessed by comparison with a national matched control group using a PSM methodology. Doncaster will be assessed against a baseline of calendar year 2009.
20. Please can you confirm that the OGRS scores cited relate to the cohort groups in both Peterborough and Doncaster (rather than all offenders who were released)?
The OGRS scores relate to the offenders within each cohort.
21. Why are the national re-conviction scores given next to Doncaster data (which average 32.9%) differ from the scores given next to the Peterborough data (average 37.9%)? I now the period is different and there is some missing data, but this still seems like a large difference…
The criteria used to create the national comparator figures for the Peterborough and Doncaster prisons are different because the 2 pilots have different criteria. For example, the national figures for the Peterborough comparison will only include adult males released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas the Doncaster comparison includes all prisoners released from custody regardless of sentence length. For more information on the differences between the two pilots please see Table A1, Annex A of the interim re-conviction figures statistical notice.
Generally, re-conviction rates are higher for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than a 12 months than for all offenders released from prison. Hence the national comparator group for Peterborough have higher re-conviction rates than the national comparator group for Doncaster.
You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.
I will stop there - the rest is pretty standard boilerplate about how to appeal etc. I will say thank you to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services (who signed the letter) for their work in responding to my challenges.
So what do you think about these answers to my questions?
What would you comment upon?
Friday, 28 June 2013
The new NHS: in one easy to understand vid
Twitter is awash with links to this video on the Kings Fund website explaining how the new NHS will be working.
You can access the video here.
I am posting this for a couple of reasons. Firstly it is a very helpful video and it will explain to you how the new NHS will be working. (It is still complex by the way!) Anyone who wants to know about such matters... go watch the video!
Secondly, and probably most importantly for me right now: my daughter, Jess Harvey, project managed the video! She works with an extraordinary outfit called Creative Connection who make lots of these kinds of videos for a whole range of people.
So congrats to The Kings Fund for commissioning this piece, Creative Connection for having such a fab team of people and, of course, my daughter Jess who brought the video all together.
Yey! (From a very proud Dad)
You can access the video here.
I am posting this for a couple of reasons. Firstly it is a very helpful video and it will explain to you how the new NHS will be working. (It is still complex by the way!) Anyone who wants to know about such matters... go watch the video!
Secondly, and probably most importantly for me right now: my daughter, Jess Harvey, project managed the video! She works with an extraordinary outfit called Creative Connection who make lots of these kinds of videos for a whole range of people.
So congrats to The Kings Fund for commissioning this piece, Creative Connection for having such a fab team of people and, of course, my daughter Jess who brought the video all together.
Yey! (From a very proud Dad)
Friday, 21 June 2013
SME friendly procurement: a radical tool
For over two years I have been an active member of the Cabinet Office's SME Panel. The other members come from a wide range of businesses including software development, travel agency services and food supply. We have met about eight times as a full panel and there have been several sub groups meeting at more regular intervals.
The Panel began following a summit hosted by the Prime Minister and Francis Maude. I am still unclear as to how I was invited along to the original summit and thence to the panel. Perhaps it was down to my humorous rant against the excesses of some procurement approaches or the fact that I dared to challenge David Cameron at the summit about the scandal of battlefield soldiers being isolated in tanks which are not adequately equipped for the real situation, because those soldiers had no input to the procurement process. We need 'whole system procurement'.
One of the pieces of work of the panel that I became closely involved with was the creation of an 'SME friendly' tool, designed to change government and public procurement forever.
This tool has now (finally!) been uploaded to the Cabinet Office website and I can proudly (and publicly) tell you more about it. You can access the tool here. The tool has been trialed in a number of central government departments and thence refined into the version on the net. The Cabinet Office have informed the SME Panel that its use is now growing across Whitehall and beyond.
I regard it as a positive sign that the Government does mean business about reforming procurement and is still persuaded that leveling the playing field so that more SMEs can bid for government contracts is valuable.
There are some of my colleagues on the SME Panel who are very concerned that there are indications that the Cabinet Office has been taking its foot off the pedal a little, of late. They fear what we are seeing is a growth of larger organisations still snaffling (to use a technical term) too much of government business in ways that mean the taxpayers and citizens are losing out (big time). While there does appear to be a belief that if the large primes sub contract their work to SMEs then the taxpayer will still reap the big rewards of lower spend and more innovation (which is largely not the case when you factor in embedded supply chain margins and large prime practices), I am more sanguine.
Changing government and public sector procurement was always going to be a long haul and I am realistic enough to know that there are many deep vested interests in maintaining the status quo. I am also aware there are many practices ensconced in public procurement departments that unwittingly favour contracting with larger suppliers. (If you are a public sector professional and you want someone to come in and help you uncover these practices and change them... just get in touch!)
In sum, I am hugely proud of the efforts that the small team, of which I was a part, put into creating the 'SME friendly tool'. Within this self assessment tool, there is hope for not only fairer procurement processes but critically also processes that result in lower costs, more innovation, better outcomes and investment in growing business in the country.
What other government tools can achieve all that?!
The Panel began following a summit hosted by the Prime Minister and Francis Maude. I am still unclear as to how I was invited along to the original summit and thence to the panel. Perhaps it was down to my humorous rant against the excesses of some procurement approaches or the fact that I dared to challenge David Cameron at the summit about the scandal of battlefield soldiers being isolated in tanks which are not adequately equipped for the real situation, because those soldiers had no input to the procurement process. We need 'whole system procurement'.
One of the pieces of work of the panel that I became closely involved with was the creation of an 'SME friendly' tool, designed to change government and public procurement forever.
This tool has now (finally!) been uploaded to the Cabinet Office website and I can proudly (and publicly) tell you more about it. You can access the tool here. The tool has been trialed in a number of central government departments and thence refined into the version on the net. The Cabinet Office have informed the SME Panel that its use is now growing across Whitehall and beyond.
I regard it as a positive sign that the Government does mean business about reforming procurement and is still persuaded that leveling the playing field so that more SMEs can bid for government contracts is valuable.
There are some of my colleagues on the SME Panel who are very concerned that there are indications that the Cabinet Office has been taking its foot off the pedal a little, of late. They fear what we are seeing is a growth of larger organisations still snaffling (to use a technical term) too much of government business in ways that mean the taxpayers and citizens are losing out (big time). While there does appear to be a belief that if the large primes sub contract their work to SMEs then the taxpayer will still reap the big rewards of lower spend and more innovation (which is largely not the case when you factor in embedded supply chain margins and large prime practices), I am more sanguine.
Changing government and public sector procurement was always going to be a long haul and I am realistic enough to know that there are many deep vested interests in maintaining the status quo. I am also aware there are many practices ensconced in public procurement departments that unwittingly favour contracting with larger suppliers. (If you are a public sector professional and you want someone to come in and help you uncover these practices and change them... just get in touch!)
In sum, I am hugely proud of the efforts that the small team, of which I was a part, put into creating the 'SME friendly tool'. Within this self assessment tool, there is hope for not only fairer procurement processes but critically also processes that result in lower costs, more innovation, better outcomes and investment in growing business in the country.
What other government tools can achieve all that?!
Friday, 14 June 2013
Quick fix, stay fix and the art of getting more from less
I have just uploaded a couple of videos to youtube (parts one and two) where I talk through a model that I have been explaining for many years (with live hand drawing!). The model is grounded in total quality management and continuous improvement (which is where I began my consultancy career).
It is not a complicated model. However many people have told me that it has really helped them to understand the significant challenges faced my them as leaders, in trying to get more from less.
Resources are very tight and demands are even greater: whether you work in the public, voluntary or commercial sectors. The need for organisations to work more elegantly has never been greater.
So please, have a look at the videos and let me know what you think. You can find them here: (Part One & Part Two)
I have also written about this model here too, if reading is more your style.
It is not a complicated model. However many people have told me that it has really helped them to understand the significant challenges faced my them as leaders, in trying to get more from less.
Resources are very tight and demands are even greater: whether you work in the public, voluntary or commercial sectors. The need for organisations to work more elegantly has never been greater.
So please, have a look at the videos and let me know what you think. You can find them here: (Part One & Part Two)
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Payment by Results and lamp posts
Many years ago at school, I studied SMP Maths. I always remember the cartoon at the front of the chapter on statistics. It showed a drunken man leaning against a lamp post. The caption read: some people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.
And so yesterday, the Ministry of Justice published
Statistical Notice: Interim re-conviction figures for the Peterborough and Doncaster Payment by Results pilots
I was drawn towards this document by a combination of Russell Webster's excellent blog and the BBC news at midday. It kind got up my gander a little bit as it seemed to be exercise in political punditry rather than a clear analysis of whether the new Payment by Results regime may actually be working (or not). With my gander raised, I emailed the statistician involved with a number of questions which I reprint below.
The questions are a bit geeky, I know. But I do think it is vital for us all to know the precise evidence for whether PbR can work or not. Feel free of course to comment or indeed write with your own questions too.
________________________
Dear Mike Elkins
I have just read through your publication. I have a number of questions and I would be most grateful for your thoughts:
1. The pilots began on 9 September 2010 and the 1 October 2011 (Peterborough and Doncaster respectively.) Please can you qualify “began”?
2. Given that “the next Proven Reoffending Statistics quarterly bulletin will not be published until 25 July 2013”, why did you publish your results today rather than a few weeks from now?
3. I understand that “the interim re-conviction figures being published in this statistical bulletin are based on periods half the length of those that will be used for the final results” – daft question I am sure, but presumably this applies to both the ‘experimental’ subject averages and the national comparators?
4. You say that these “interim 6 month re-conviction figures are available for almost all of Peterborough cohort 1 (around 850 offenders) and half of Doncaster cohort 1 (around 700 offenders)”, please can you explain what has happened to the other portions of the cohorts and why they are included?
5. In terms of methodology, you say “offenders enter the PbR pilots after their first eligible release from the prison within the cohort period”, please can you explain “eligible” in this context and whether the national comparator figures also cover the same “eligible” group?
6. You explain that the key difference is that reconvictions only count offences for which the offender was convicted at court, whereas the National Statistics proven re-offending measure also includes out of court disposals (cautions)” and “Additionally, there are a number of other differences between the pilots and the
7. National Statistics proven re-offending measure in terms of which offenders are counted within the cohort”. Are you able to say what difference these differences might make to the figures? For example, what number of offenders per hundred are usually subject to a caution (or similar disposal) as opposed to a court conviction?
8. Again I assume that given that the “Peterborough pilot includes offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas the Doncaster pilot includes all offenders released from custody regardless of sentence length”, the national comparisons are on a like for like basis?
9. You explain that the “success of each Peterborough cohort will be determined by comparison with a control group (of comparable offenders from across the country)”. How will this ‘control’ group be selected to ensure there is no inadvertent or unknown bias? Indeed was there (will there be) any form of randomised control trial element to either of these two trials (and extensions)? If not, what is your considered professional judgement as a statistician as to the validity of these results to guide future practice?
10. For Doncaster, success “will be determined by comparison with the reconviction rate in the baseline year of 2009”. How will this accommodate national and/or local trends in (say) sentencing practice or levels of crime?
11. Given that normally reconviction rates are measured on a 12 month basis and these interim results are measured on a 6 month one, how much is that likely (based on past data) to have depressed the reconviction rates?
12. You say “Whereas in this publication, to eliminate the risk of seasonality and enable a consistent comparison over time, all figures relate to offenders released in the 6 month period from October to March”. I may well be missing something here, but by only using the six winter months, are you not likely to increase the risk of a seasonal effect in the data? Please explain further.
13. Given that the Peterborough cohort finished on 1/7/12, and allowing for the 6 months plus 3 (for court delays), this takes us up to March 2013. So on this basis, why have the last three months of data (April, May and June 2012) been excluded? (As far as I can see there is no explanation of this decision, but forgive me if I have overlooked it.)
14. Given that I assume that data is ordinarily collected on a quarterly basis, it would have been helpful to have presented your data in a similar way so that trends could be spotted over time rather than use the fairly arbitrary 19 month period to show the data. Why did you present it this way? Please could I have the data on a quarterly basis.
15. Given that you must have the data for Peterborough for the missing 19 month period (September 08 to March 11), and acknowledging that this overlaps with the pilot beginning, please could I have this data nonetheless.
16. Likewise, please could I have the data for the quarter beginning April 2012.
17. You say “Nationally the equivalent figures show a rise of 16% from 69 to 79 re-conviction events per 100 offenders”. How do you get 16%? I can see a rise of 10 ‘points’ or a rise of (10/69*100) 14.5%.
18. (As an aside, this is quite a large rise nationally in re-conviction rates comparing the period from just before the last election to period after. Have national rates continued to rise or have they levelled off now?)
19. You say “these interim figures show a fall in the frequency of re-conviction events at Peterborough” which is drop from 41.6% to 39.2%. At what threshold of probability is this statistically significant?
20. Please can you confirm that the OGRS scores cited relate to the cohort groups in both Peterborough and Doncaster (rather than all offenders who were released)?
21. Why are the national re-conviction scores given next to Doncaster data (which average 32.9%) differ from the scores given next to the Peterborough data (average 37.9%)? I know the period is different and there is some missing data, but this still seems like a large difference…
I look forward to your thoughts
Many thanks
________________________
And now I wait...
UPDATE: FoI inquiry has been acknowledged. 20 working days or less to go... (140613)
And so yesterday, the Ministry of Justice published
Statistical Notice: Interim re-conviction figures for the Peterborough and Doncaster Payment by Results pilots
I was drawn towards this document by a combination of Russell Webster's excellent blog and the BBC news at midday. It kind got up my gander a little bit as it seemed to be exercise in political punditry rather than a clear analysis of whether the new Payment by Results regime may actually be working (or not). With my gander raised, I emailed the statistician involved with a number of questions which I reprint below.
The questions are a bit geeky, I know. But I do think it is vital for us all to know the precise evidence for whether PbR can work or not. Feel free of course to comment or indeed write with your own questions too.
________________________
Dear Mike Elkins
I have just read through your publication. I have a number of questions and I would be most grateful for your thoughts:
1. The pilots began on 9 September 2010 and the 1 October 2011 (Peterborough and Doncaster respectively.) Please can you qualify “began”?
2. Given that “the next Proven Reoffending Statistics quarterly bulletin will not be published until 25 July 2013”, why did you publish your results today rather than a few weeks from now?
3. I understand that “the interim re-conviction figures being published in this statistical bulletin are based on periods half the length of those that will be used for the final results” – daft question I am sure, but presumably this applies to both the ‘experimental’ subject averages and the national comparators?
4. You say that these “interim 6 month re-conviction figures are available for almost all of Peterborough cohort 1 (around 850 offenders) and half of Doncaster cohort 1 (around 700 offenders)”, please can you explain what has happened to the other portions of the cohorts and why they are included?
5. In terms of methodology, you say “offenders enter the PbR pilots after their first eligible release from the prison within the cohort period”, please can you explain “eligible” in this context and whether the national comparator figures also cover the same “eligible” group?
6. You explain that the key difference is that reconvictions only count offences for which the offender was convicted at court, whereas the National Statistics proven re-offending measure also includes out of court disposals (cautions)” and “Additionally, there are a number of other differences between the pilots and the
7. National Statistics proven re-offending measure in terms of which offenders are counted within the cohort”. Are you able to say what difference these differences might make to the figures? For example, what number of offenders per hundred are usually subject to a caution (or similar disposal) as opposed to a court conviction?
8. Again I assume that given that the “Peterborough pilot includes offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas the Doncaster pilot includes all offenders released from custody regardless of sentence length”, the national comparisons are on a like for like basis?
9. You explain that the “success of each Peterborough cohort will be determined by comparison with a control group (of comparable offenders from across the country)”. How will this ‘control’ group be selected to ensure there is no inadvertent or unknown bias? Indeed was there (will there be) any form of randomised control trial element to either of these two trials (and extensions)? If not, what is your considered professional judgement as a statistician as to the validity of these results to guide future practice?
10. For Doncaster, success “will be determined by comparison with the reconviction rate in the baseline year of 2009”. How will this accommodate national and/or local trends in (say) sentencing practice or levels of crime?
11. Given that normally reconviction rates are measured on a 12 month basis and these interim results are measured on a 6 month one, how much is that likely (based on past data) to have depressed the reconviction rates?
12. You say “Whereas in this publication, to eliminate the risk of seasonality and enable a consistent comparison over time, all figures relate to offenders released in the 6 month period from October to March”. I may well be missing something here, but by only using the six winter months, are you not likely to increase the risk of a seasonal effect in the data? Please explain further.
13. Given that the Peterborough cohort finished on 1/7/12, and allowing for the 6 months plus 3 (for court delays), this takes us up to March 2013. So on this basis, why have the last three months of data (April, May and June 2012) been excluded? (As far as I can see there is no explanation of this decision, but forgive me if I have overlooked it.)
14. Given that I assume that data is ordinarily collected on a quarterly basis, it would have been helpful to have presented your data in a similar way so that trends could be spotted over time rather than use the fairly arbitrary 19 month period to show the data. Why did you present it this way? Please could I have the data on a quarterly basis.
15. Given that you must have the data for Peterborough for the missing 19 month period (September 08 to March 11), and acknowledging that this overlaps with the pilot beginning, please could I have this data nonetheless.
16. Likewise, please could I have the data for the quarter beginning April 2012.
17. You say “Nationally the equivalent figures show a rise of 16% from 69 to 79 re-conviction events per 100 offenders”. How do you get 16%? I can see a rise of 10 ‘points’ or a rise of (10/69*100) 14.5%.
18. (As an aside, this is quite a large rise nationally in re-conviction rates comparing the period from just before the last election to period after. Have national rates continued to rise or have they levelled off now?)
19. You say “these interim figures show a fall in the frequency of re-conviction events at Peterborough” which is drop from 41.6% to 39.2%. At what threshold of probability is this statistically significant?
20. Please can you confirm that the OGRS scores cited relate to the cohort groups in both Peterborough and Doncaster (rather than all offenders who were released)?
21. Why are the national re-conviction scores given next to Doncaster data (which average 32.9%) differ from the scores given next to the Peterborough data (average 37.9%)? I know the period is different and there is some missing data, but this still seems like a large difference…
I look forward to your thoughts
Many thanks
________________________
And now I wait...
UPDATE: FoI inquiry has been acknowledged. 20 working days or less to go... (140613)
Friday, 31 May 2013
Digital local services: the zero challenge!
Recently, I had the great pleasure of facilitating a vibrant symposium on how to harness the power of digital in the delivery of local services - so that there can be more effectiveness, efficiency and economy.
The day was one of series organised by ITW. If you are not already signed up to be part of this network (or the several others that ITW have put together...) what is stopping you? It is free for people from the public sector, and becoming a private sector partner is well worth your investment.
It was also a delight to work alongside my daughter, Jess on that day too. She took the answers to three 'zero challenge'* questions and turned them into a themed visual presentation. The questions were:
The day was one of series organised by ITW. If you are not already signed up to be part of this network (or the several others that ITW have put together...) what is stopping you? It is free for people from the public sector, and becoming a private sector partner is well worth your investment.
It was also a delight to work alongside my daughter, Jess on that day too. She took the answers to three 'zero challenge'* questions and turned them into a themed visual presentation. The questions were:
- What must we learn from the past: what should we now stop, start and carry on doing?
- If the future is nothing else, we must make sure that it… what?
- In order to sweat our existing assets and capacity, we really should… what?
And this is what Jess produced.
(I have also uploaded a 7Mb version of this to my google drive, if you want to access that.)
I may be biased of course, but I think this picture neatly and beautifully summarises many of the challenges ahead as local services grapple with how to make digital working far more than just uploading existing forms onto the net (!)
So if you are a public sector person looking to network around some core issues, you can contact ITW here. And if you are from the private sector, please get in touch via this page. And if you looking for a Visual Communication Artist, Photographer & Project Manager then you can contact Jess via this email contact.
*Re 'zero challenge': this is something I have designed to fit into a day which is already jam packed with inputs & workshops. It provides a still moment of reflection, prompted by some critical questions designed to generate some useful insights from the participants at the very outset. It also helps the participants focus in on the day itself.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
The vital role of PCCs in preventing crime
Since Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have an emerging vital role in crime prevention (not just reduction) – I thought I would dig out the impressive work of Professor Paul Ekblom.
Professor Ekblom can be found residing here: http://www.designagainstcrime.com/ where he promotes his work to reduce and prevent crime. I first came across his work when he was at the Home Office and I remain hugely impressed by his “Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity” model which I think provokes much good thought leading towards actions to be taken to prevent and reduce crime.
Using his model as a prompt, there is much that the best PCCs will be able to do to reduce and prevent crime through the powers that they will have and the leadership influence they will bring:
What would be your priorities?
(If you visit Lincoln, the old prison is well worth exploring for its fascinating focus on air conditionning and keeping prisoners apart from each other - the prison is more or less preserved in aspic..)
Professor Ekblom can be found residing here: http://www.designagainstcrime.com/ where he promotes his work to reduce and prevent crime. I first came across his work when he was at the Home Office and I remain hugely impressed by his “Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity” model which I think provokes much good thought leading towards actions to be taken to prevent and reduce crime.
Using his model as a prompt, there is much that the best PCCs will be able to do to reduce and prevent crime through the powers that they will have and the leadership influence they will bring:
- Given that the potential offenders must first have a predisposition for crime (criminality), the PCC will be able to engage with a range of public agencies to coordinate and focus early intervention and progressive actions with communities (and perhaps even individual families) where criminality is at its highest.
- Offenders usually lack resources to avoid crime (such as ability to restrain impulses, exercise social skills and gain a legitimate living). The PCC has a role here to support programmes which assist known offenders get out of the cycle of criminal behaviour through skills training, supporting apprenticeships as part of Police procurement and so forth.
- People who commit crimes are by definition ready to offend (e.g. motivated by boredom, shortage of money or need for drugs, being in a conflicting relationship, being in a particular emotional state). Disrupting these motivations is therefore critical. While many of these motivations are very personal and ephemeral, a PCC can support drugs rehab programmes and even Relate in its efforts to help people maintain stable relationships. (I have often joked that the National Offender Management System should run a free online dating agency since one of the most effective factors in reducing crime is being in a fun, loving and stable relationship where you have much to lose.. or am I joking?)
- And then there are the resources for crime (the skills, inside knowledge, criminal contacts, tools, weapons etc). All the evidence points towards those who get mixed up in the criminal justice systems stay mixed up in it – for a whole array of reasons. One of these reasons is that people get more resources to commit crime in the future. This has got to change. Whilst I am not advocating the solitary confinement of Victorian gaols where it was believed that criminals could ‘catch’ criminality from breathing others’ air (see pic below of the old Lincoln Prison chapel), I am saying let’s keep people out of gaol as much as possible. New PCCs will have much to learn from (say) the experience of transformation of New York City where a recent article reviewing a new book stated: Much greater use was made of alternatives to incarceration, such as community sentences and residential drug treatment, as well as “drug courts” and other non-traditional ways of hearing cases.
- In one of my previous occupations, I was a health education officer. At the Oxfordshire Health Unit where I worked, we used the Health Belief Model as a source of inspiration for much of our activity. In a similar vein, the Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity model uses the idea that offenders calculate whether the risk & effort is outweighed by the scale & likelihood of reward. PCCs can act to boost the perceptions that risk and effort are high and rewards low by (for example) entering into a dialogue with local media to increase the perception that offenders will get caught and their rewards will be confiscated.
- I am not sure what a PCC can do about offenders needing to be present in the situation whereby an offender can commit a crime, other than ensuring that all efforts are taken to keep known past offenders busy with other stuff. Idle hands an all that. The provision of good youth services (being myopically and cynically cut by many local Tory authorities when they calculate that many young people can’t or won’t vote) is a must naturally, as are projects mentioned above.
- But there is much that PCCs can do to ensure that crime preventers (as Ekblom calls then) are present, capable and credible by adequately funding the police service in terms of numbers and skills development. Moreover, these preventers can be anyone with a formal crime prevention responsibility (police, community safety staff, concierges) or an informal one (residents, parents, teachers or employees in general). This means that PCCs should be supporting other projects designed to support this second category by acting to criticise politically short sighted cuts in (say) caretakers for sheltered housing places. These criminal event preventers can reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed by shaping the situation (e.g. by locking doors) or influencing the offender (e.g. by applying social pressure not to steal). They can intervene during the event (defending themselves or their property, or that of others) or react after it. The preventers’ potential to intervene and react can influence the current crime event through the offender’s anticipation (‘Will the victim or passers-by overpower me? Will I be identified to the police?’). It can also influence the next event by the action taken (e.g. victims securing their house against repeat burglary, or reporting to the police to initiate detection, criminal proceedings and punishment). (Italics are mostly Ekblom quotes above, by the way)
- Just as there are crime preventers, there are also crime promoters who by contrast increase the likelihood of a criminal event by careless or provocative behaviour or more practical contributions such as supplying weapons or buying stolen goods. The PCC support for effective police action to disrupt such networks is obvious.
- Targets of crime may be human, physical property, data, environmental or service-related. Targets must be attractive and vulnerable. PCCs can use their leadership to help people understand what action they can take (as individuals, as partner agencies, as businesses etc.) to reduce vulnerability and attractiveness. Locking bikes and keeping expensive mobile phones out of sight come to mind. PCCs can sponsor gating projects to make access to homes less easy. Thicker walls between flats can reduce noise disruption and violence which can follow. Again PCCs have a role here in influencing planning authorities and housing developers.
(If you visit Lincoln, the old prison is well worth exploring for its fascinating focus on air conditionning and keeping prisoners apart from each other - the prison is more or less preserved in aspic..)
Monday, 29 April 2013
All in the mind? (Is social media helping reduce the fear of crime, or not?)
What I want to focus on in this blog is whether social media (in all of its forms) is helping to reduce the problem of the fear of crime. But first some background:
While the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 was in committee stages, I mounted a one-man campaign to have reducing not just actual crime & disorder as the aim for local community safety partnerships but also the fear of crime & disorder written in as a statutory aim. I did not succeed but I still wonder how the UK would be different had my campaign been successful.
For we still have a significant gap between the public’s experience of crime and their fear of it. As an excellent article in the Guardian last week pointed out:
Fear of crime is a large problem, in my view, for several reasons including making some people reluctant to leave their homes, the way it twists the debates around policing & crime, and the ways in which certain groups of people are demonised.
But to return to the question: is social media is helping this situation or not. (I guess I fear that it could be making things worse.) I posed this question last Saturday to a the BlueLightCamp unconference (hastag #ukblc13) and a most useful discussion was had.
(FYI: the camp was a collection of people involved with the emergency services who came together to talk about the use of social media in these areas. It was a great day, by the way! And big thanks to those who came along to the session I ran.)
With that discussion on social media and the fear of crime, I was left with a series of questions:
While the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 was in committee stages, I mounted a one-man campaign to have reducing not just actual crime & disorder as the aim for local community safety partnerships but also the fear of crime & disorder written in as a statutory aim. I did not succeed but I still wonder how the UK would be different had my campaign been successful.
For we still have a significant gap between the public’s experience of crime and their fear of it. As an excellent article in the Guardian last week pointed out:
Two thirds of respondents to the British Crime Survey (now the Crime Survey for England and Wales, or CSEW) consistently say that they believe crime has increased a little or a lot over the past decade.Do read the whole article. It has some excellent references and asks some important questions.
Fear of crime is a large problem, in my view, for several reasons including making some people reluctant to leave their homes, the way it twists the debates around policing & crime, and the ways in which certain groups of people are demonised.
But to return to the question: is social media is helping this situation or not. (I guess I fear that it could be making things worse.) I posed this question last Saturday to a the BlueLightCamp unconference (hastag #ukblc13) and a most useful discussion was had.
(FYI: the camp was a collection of people involved with the emergency services who came together to talk about the use of social media in these areas. It was a great day, by the way! And big thanks to those who came along to the session I ran.)
With that discussion on social media and the fear of crime, I was left with a series of questions:
- How can we design the social media space to reduce the opportunities for fear of crime to be made worse and increase the chances that people will feel safer instead?
- In other words: are there principles from the ‘designing out crime’ practices in the real world that could be imported into the social media space?
- Can the idea that people generally feel more assured, confident and safe if they see a uniformed officer in their community (and I know this is up for hot debate), be applied to social media – a sort of virtual 'hi-vis' police presence?
- How much is known about the full impact of police tweeting, blogging etc: are people now better informed and assured or are the public now even more fearful? (Has any research been done on this?)
- Are there ways of putting messages out there that will narrow the gap between the perceived and actual incidence of crime and disorder (and ways that make the gap bigger?)
- Is some policing social media unwittingly making things worse for the public?
- If we take the view that much of the mainstream traditional media still focus on crime reporting that magnifies fear, how should the social media protagonists in the policing world respond?
- Although I am not suggesting that the fear of crime can drive people to suicide (can it?), in the ‘real world’ there are signs put up on (say) Clifton Suspension Bridge and at the ends of station platforms offering people help. Is there a social media equivalent that could help people reduce any distress about the fear of crime?
- Should Neighbourhood Watch organise a social media branch?
- What do you think might be done? (All ideas welcome!)
Thursday, 25 April 2013
It is performance management Jim, but not as we know it
I have read two rather excellent pieces this morning about managing and improving performance in the public services.
First I came across this piece by Mike Ledwidge entitled "Why has it all gone wrong within our public services". It is a bit of a polemical rant containing some ideas that I would not support* but its main thrust that the public services have been failed dismally by politicians and managers who think performance can be managed by measuring outputs is well made. To cite one paragraph (but do read the whole article):
So for the uninitiated politician and manager charged with the responsibility of improving public service performance and getting quarts out of pint pots... here are some pointers:
But please, just read some work by Deming, Checkland, Ohno or Seddon. And please (please!) stop wasting precious public resources on fluffy, vanity systems of performance management that are mostly "sound and fury signifying nothing!"
* e.g. the comment "At one stage we were 20,000 teachers short, and some have been replaced by people who, like some doctors, are not easy to understand" which is an unnecessary xenophobic swipe, it seems to me
First I came across this piece by Mike Ledwidge entitled "Why has it all gone wrong within our public services". It is a bit of a polemical rant containing some ideas that I would not support* but its main thrust that the public services have been failed dismally by politicians and managers who think performance can be managed by measuring outputs is well made. To cite one paragraph (but do read the whole article):
You CANNOT performance measure a ‘complex system’ by outputs. Now if you do not understand EXACTLY what that sentence means let us hope you are not involved in anything to do with the management of our public services. Sadly we now have thousands of senior public servants who think they do know what they are doing with targets and measurement, and clearly they don’t. Complex systems have more than one purpose. If you measure the police on arrests and detections, any prevention they do will muck that up. If you ‘performance measure’ on crime reduction, officers will find ways to not record crimes. The awful tale of the rape unit in Southwark trying to improve their stats is an example of the result of government pressure and targets.And then later, @TheCustodySgt pointed me towards an excellent piece by @SimonJGuilfoyle entitled "Panic!" In his article, Simon uses his long experience of such matters to highlight how managers often lurch into action based on an erroneous understanding of performance variation. Again, please read the piece as it contains a delightful cartoon which makes the point very clearly:
The post is about the unintended consequences that can occur when managers draw erroneous conclusions about dataAs regular readers know, this is a subject I have mentioned before in several places. I wrote this recently on another blog which has many links.
So for the uninitiated politician and manager charged with the responsibility of improving public service performance and getting quarts out of pint pots... here are some pointers:
- Achieving social outcomes (the improvements in society that we pay the public services to produce) is mighty complex: don't even think you can boil things to simple linear or transactional 'customer' relationships!
- Everything varies: the weather, leaves in the forest, need for social care and disturbances on drunk Saturday nights...
- But, there are patterns in these variations which need to and can be understood (well mostly): public services need to be resourced and organised around these variations
- Measurements & targets change that which they are measuring and targeting (and not just in the way that a watched pot never boils!)
- As Deming famously said "drive out fear": if your system of performance management contains even a wisp of fear, people will do weird and unexpected things that are not what you intended
But please, just read some work by Deming, Checkland, Ohno or Seddon. And please (please!) stop wasting precious public resources on fluffy, vanity systems of performance management that are mostly "sound and fury signifying nothing!"
* e.g. the comment "At one stage we were 20,000 teachers short, and some have been replaced by people who, like some doctors, are not easy to understand" which is an unnecessary xenophobic swipe, it seems to me
Monday, 25 March 2013
Policing & Crime Plans and frontline discretion
We are nearing the time when all 41 PCCs will have published their Police and Crime Plans. In the months running up to the election of the PCCs, many people expressed concerns that their introduction would lead to political control of what the police services and police officers do. Despite clear statements in the legislation that operational leadership would still rest with the Chief Constable, many people were and probably still remain concerned.
The worry, I assume in part, comes from a belief that the objectives framed by the PCCs for their areas in these forthcoming plans will inevitably affect what police officers and staff do on the ground. There will be many of course, who will believe that such lofty strategic plans are a long way from the 'sharp end' and will make little difference.
With all this in mind, I dug out an extract from a proposal I submitted over a year ago to a police service which wanted to commission some research into how their officers and staff perceived their operational discretion and independence when balanced against their relationship with constabulary policy, procedures and performance management regime. It looked to be a fascinating piece of work and I was fed up that I did not win it! But such is life!
As part of my submission, I devised a set of questions that could be asked of front line officers to get inside how much their felt their professional discretion and responsibility was compromised and/or supported and/or unaffected by wider policies, objectives and plans etc. Here are those questions:
- How much individual responsibility do you consider you currently have on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “I only do what I am instructed to do” and 10 means “I am 100% in control of what decisions I take at work”?
- Using the same scale, where do you think you ought to be (and it may be the same)?
- How much accountability do you consider you currently have on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “I am not held to account for anything that I do or achieve” and 10 means “I am held to account for everything that I do or achieve”?
- Using the same scale, where do you think you ought to be (and it may be the same)?
- In your view, how is the fit between what you are responsible for and what you are held to account for? For this the scale is 1 “no fit at all, I am often held to account for that which I am not responsible” through to 10 “I am only held to account for that which I am responsible for”?
- Using the same scale, where do you think you ought to be (and it may be the same)?
- Given all of these questions above, what would you say that would add depth and colour to your answers? What evidence, examples or stories do you have to illustrate your views?
- One summary interpretation of the ‘Oath of Allegiance’ is that you have (within its scope) total independence to do all that you consider necessary to support and maintain the Queen’s Peace. If you think the reality is somewhat different, please tell me how it is different?
- Do you have any examples of where you acted in accord with the Oath but independently of force policy and procedures? What are those examples?
- Are there other examples where you acted dependently upon force procedures but in your view, not in accord with the Oath? What are those examples?
- What is the difference that makes the difference between those two extremes? How do you determine how much independence (of policy and procedures) you can exercise?
- On the basis that it is the job of everyone working for the Police to make effective and efficient decisions, what helps you make those kind of decisions?
- And what gets in the way of making decisions that serve greater effectiveness and efficiency?
- In your view, what needs to happen so that you can be more confident in your own decision making – and that of your colleagues as well?
So if anyone wants to some more research now - especially into how the new Police and Crime Plans may impact frontline decision making - you are welcome to use these questions as a starter for ten (although an attribution would be lovely).
And if you are a frontline officer / member of staff - and you would like to answer these questions anonymously - please do get in touch. (jon@jonharveyassociates.co.uk) I would be interested in your answers!
Sunday, 24 March 2013
The shape of things to come?
Some people are getting in a froth about the expanding teams supporting the Police & Crime Commissioners around the country:
By means of comparison, I am merely a lowly town councillor. I get about 200 emails a month and just yesterday I despatched a stack of one year's worth of council agendas and other papers 18 inches high to the recycling bin. I am one of 17 councillors and between us, with half a dozen staff, we just about manage to stay on top of all the issues. We hope. I spend about a day per week on council related business. And I admit, I do not read every document in depth that comes my way. But we are a team, and I know that my councillor colleagues will read some of the pieces I miss and together we cover all the bases.
Now transpose this to a PCC. My local PCC has a population of 2.3 million people to cover with 17 local authorities. The budget of course is much bigger than my town council. The buck stops with him and therefore he must stay on top of a very wide range of issues. As I mentioned before, even if only 1% of the people resident in the Thames Valley Police Area write to their PCC once every year, that equates to over 400 letters and emails every week which require investigation and a response.
So I am none too surprised that many PCCs are creating bigger teams. Frankly, in my opinion, they have little choice unless they want to treat the job as something of a part time jolly.
So please read more about one example: the team that Bob Jones is creating in West Midlands. I know Bob and he is not sort of man to spend taxpayers' money without very good cause. Given the size of his 'constituency' and the need to liaise with a significant set of local authorities & other partners, he is creating a Board that has the capability and capacity to do the job.
I would also suggest that Bob is creating the shape of things to come. I am guessing here, but I would imagine that he would favour having an elected board of assistant commissioners as one way of spreading accountability and democracy.
Could this be the model for a policing governance structure that a future government might install?
New police chiefs (who you didn't vote for) pay cronies thousands: Crime tsars give friends and allies jobs worth up to £73,000Apart from the fact that this should be 'whom you didn't vote for'... I am wondering what people honestly expected? Certainly, the suggestion that cronyism is alive and well in some offices of the PCC is an accusation that might stick in some places. (A subject I have blogged about before.) However the idea that a single individual could ever really cover the job of PCC without some significant and close support is laughable.
By means of comparison, I am merely a lowly town councillor. I get about 200 emails a month and just yesterday I despatched a stack of one year's worth of council agendas and other papers 18 inches high to the recycling bin. I am one of 17 councillors and between us, with half a dozen staff, we just about manage to stay on top of all the issues. We hope. I spend about a day per week on council related business. And I admit, I do not read every document in depth that comes my way. But we are a team, and I know that my councillor colleagues will read some of the pieces I miss and together we cover all the bases.
Now transpose this to a PCC. My local PCC has a population of 2.3 million people to cover with 17 local authorities. The budget of course is much bigger than my town council. The buck stops with him and therefore he must stay on top of a very wide range of issues. As I mentioned before, even if only 1% of the people resident in the Thames Valley Police Area write to their PCC once every year, that equates to over 400 letters and emails every week which require investigation and a response.
So I am none too surprised that many PCCs are creating bigger teams. Frankly, in my opinion, they have little choice unless they want to treat the job as something of a part time jolly.
So please read more about one example: the team that Bob Jones is creating in West Midlands. I know Bob and he is not sort of man to spend taxpayers' money without very good cause. Given the size of his 'constituency' and the need to liaise with a significant set of local authorities & other partners, he is creating a Board that has the capability and capacity to do the job.
I would also suggest that Bob is creating the shape of things to come. I am guessing here, but I would imagine that he would favour having an elected board of assistant commissioners as one way of spreading accountability and democracy.
Could this be the model for a policing governance structure that a future government might install?
Saturday, 23 March 2013
Association of PCCs
Yesterday it was announced "Police Commissioners agree to form national representative body" along with details of the new Board that will be steering the APCC from here onwards. Here they are:
New APCC board of Directors
As regular readers know, I was part of a small group of people who made a parallel offer to PCCs to support them on this journey. (See details of CoPaCC here.) As the offspring of the Association of Police Authority, the APCC always had the cards stacked in their favour of course. Us 'CoPaCCers' knew this. Nonetheless, it is my hope that, perhaps, we influenced the debate around the formation and establishment of the APCC.
It is also my hope that being on the 'other side' as it were, will not mean that either the APCC or PCCs in general see us people they would not want to do business with. I became involved in CoPaCC because I want to help PCCs to do all that they can do to improve police and crime services around the country. We remain on that same page.
Also CoPaCC has not gone away. Please keep an eye on the website and watch out for services as they develop. We remain a confederation of associates who will continue to offer help and support to Police and Crime governance in England and Wales.
New APCC board of Directors
- Tony Lloyd PCC (Labour - Greater Manchester) and Chairman of the APCC and Directors:
- Sir Graham Bright PCC (Conservative - Cambridgeshire)
- Anthony Stansfeld PCC (Conservative - Thames Valley)
- Vera Baird PCC (Labour - Northumbria)
- Ron Ball PCC (Independent - Warwickshire)
- Simon Hayes PCC (Independent - Hampshire)
- Cllr Simon Duckworth (Chair of Police Committee - City of London)
As regular readers know, I was part of a small group of people who made a parallel offer to PCCs to support them on this journey. (See details of CoPaCC here.) As the offspring of the Association of Police Authority, the APCC always had the cards stacked in their favour of course. Us 'CoPaCCers' knew this. Nonetheless, it is my hope that, perhaps, we influenced the debate around the formation and establishment of the APCC.
It is also my hope that being on the 'other side' as it were, will not mean that either the APCC or PCCs in general see us people they would not want to do business with. I became involved in CoPaCC because I want to help PCCs to do all that they can do to improve police and crime services around the country. We remain on that same page.
Also CoPaCC has not gone away. Please keep an eye on the website and watch out for services as they develop. We remain a confederation of associates who will continue to offer help and support to Police and Crime governance in England and Wales.
Friday, 22 March 2013
How will the police service enable the ‘frontline professional’ to fight crime and protect the public?
On Wednesday 13 March between 10am and 12 midday there was a live debate on Twitter using the hashtag #futurecop (from gavthecop)
So I thought I would add my two pennyworth as I was travelling for much of this time. Here are some ideas:
So I thought I would add my two pennyworth as I was travelling for much of this time. Here are some ideas:
- The office of constable is possibly one of the most legally empowered frontline roles in the country but the impression I get is that not many PCs feel this way. How come? Perhaps a start to answering the overall question would be found in understanding why...
- I have already blogged about the value to be found from not only empowering / enabling the frontline officers (PCs, PCSOs and other staff) but also empowering / enabling citizens and communities to take (evidence based) action to prevent and tackle crime & disorder. (Blog is here) Our aim should be to create 'barefoot crime preventers'
- Speaking as a socialist of course, I cannot help but notice that socio-economic class features highly in the analysis of where crime happens, which communities are most at risk etc. So perhaps a good dose of sociology and/or socialism as part of police training would be a good thing... While all frontline officers are well versed in addressing racism, sexism, ageism etc... what about a little more about tackling classism?
- Also as I have blogged before, policing resources should be deployed into areas where there is most risk of harm / actual harm. This might mean that there is sufficient resource to take a long term view of crime and disorder in those areas and engage in some solid prevention. This would be an alternative to constant 'fire fighting' and reactive policing which often arises in places where resources are severely stretched.
- Perhaps every Neighbourhood Action Group or Community Safety Committee should be required to have a random five members of the ordinary public present each time they meet. These people may give a greater voice to their concerns and help frontline officers know more about what they should be tackling. Equally if any of these five people fall asleep during the course of the meetings, the meeting would have to stop!
- I have also blogged before about the role of the PCC in crime prevention with a strong focus on the work of Paul Ekblom and his conjunction of criminal opportunity model. Much of this is applicable to frontline officers also.
- Section 17 of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act imposes "…. a general duty on each local authority to take account of the community safety dimension in all of its work. All policies, strategies, plans and budgets will need to be considered from the standpoint of their potential contribution to the reduction of crime and disorder". (Source here) Has this law ever been fully enacted? Could frontline officers, perhaps with the back up of the PCC, now be using this more?
Thursday, 10 January 2013
Groundhog Day?
Nineteen or so years ago, the previous Conservative administration passed the Police and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1994 which introduced the now defunct police authorities and brought in the idea of Annual Policing Plans. In May 1995, I began my twelve years with the Office for Public Management.
One of the first ideas I had was to convene a series of workshops in the autumn with police authority members, police staff and police officers, involved in the process, to reflect upon the first year of policing plans and think about the next.
I produced a briefing paper based on the four workshops: Fitting Aspirations with Reality: Developing more effective annual policing plans which OPM have kindly agreed to allow me to republish. I thought their might be some lessons in there which are still valid...
I have uploaded a scanned pdf to my google drive and you can access it here (not least for the list of people who came along - many of whom are still around in the policing world...)
The key points to emerge were:
- the most important ingredient for successful annual policing plans is the development of a close partnership between chief constable and police authorities
- the best plans are those which 'spring off the glossy page' and turn into carefully integrated organisation development initiatives. Good plans encompass issues such as internal and external two-way communication, performance management and structural redesign
- much controversy and confusion surround the allocation of resources in support of, and made explicit within, annual policing plans. It is likely that resolving this matter will greatly help the progressive development of these plans.
So much has changed since then...(?)
The section headings include:
- The costing of policing plans
- Involving key stakeholders successfully
- Avoiding the hazards (and developing good practice) in public service planning
- Clarify the purpose
- Build in flexibility
- Set realistic targets
- Develop stakeholder 'ownership'
- Connect the plan to the 'real world'
- Be bold
What do you think? Have we moved on much in the last 17+ years?
Thursday, 27 December 2012
Leadership in 3 words (2013)
It is that time of year again when I ask people to name the three words that people think describe the leadership we are going to need in the forthcoming year. (Previous posts are here and here). My three words are:
Please post below or tweet at me with the hashtag: #3lship13. Thanks
UPDATE: here are some more contributions from this morning. Thanks to all
- inclusive
- bold
- focused
- @PaddyBriggs: competent would be progress...
- @OpenEyeComms: innovative, aware, agile
- @DorsetRachel: Brave, transparent, inclusive
- @StitchMitchell: Stop Fiddling Expenses
- @CCLeicsPolice: transparent, principled, energised
- @LabourBroomhill: Judgement, Kindness, Challenge
- @PW0559: Caring; Consistent; Comprehensive
- @quakerpen: Truthful, imaginative, nonconforming
- @OfficialSaundra: Sensitive, Informed, Decisive
- @youcanrugby: communication , direction , brave (I'm also going to add a strong team)
Please post below or tweet at me with the hashtag: #3lship13. Thanks
UPDATE: here are some more contributions from this morning. Thanks to all
- @JohnCharlesDyer: One For All
- @SusanPopoola: Empathetic, Convicted, Wise
- @Alanw47: Fair, Honest, Transparent
- @Suzze05: Fair ( not driven by influential lobbyists), informed (based on evidence not ideology), listens!
- @tsdpete: Understanding, humility and conscience
- @betsypud: true socialist values
- @IanChisnall: Bold, Consensual, Inclusive (not we're all in this together LOL)
- @driveukmartin: industrious virtuous hardworking
- @puppyjohn1999: Compassionate, Flexible, Autistic
- @RichardJMurphy: Courageous; Compassionate; Competent
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
#1dy4cyp
Later on today, I am popping into Worktree in Milton Keynes for a mince pie and seasonal cheer. Worktree is a local charity that assists school students to understand and prepare for the world of work. Schools invite Worktree in to run events that give their young people experience of being involved in a work-type project, find out more about careers beyond what their family members do and generally help to boost their confidence and skills. I am one of many business people who help them to do this by helping to facilitate these events. (For the sake of clarity: these are not paid gigs!)
So as I woke up this morning, I was mulling on this part of my day and reflecting on my post from yesterday about the need for us all to play our part in creating a more 'child-liking' world.
I am no longer young but I can imagine that if I were, this year would have troubled me lots. Whilst I hope that what fills the lives of children and young people are good or frothy or educational things, I suspect much of the bad news will have filtered through to them. As TV and Radio celebrities are accused of child abuse, as children get murdered in their primary school classrooms and as young people find it hard to get jobs and pay for higher education the world might appear to be a very unfriendly place for children and young people. If I were a young person, this year probably will not have helped me to feel great about what the future has in store for me.
As adults, we can do something about this. We can of course try to be good parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles and friends to children and young people. But perhaps there is a little bit more we can do.
With the blog post, I would like to start a small campaign to encourage every adult to commit to doing one day of voluntary work next year in support of children and young people. This could mean helping to paint a local scout hut, clearing rubbish from a local park, spending a couple of afternoons in a local children's centre reading stories, assisting a local school to rewire its wifi system, taking part in a project similar to what Worktree does in Milton Keynes or a hundred other possibilities. I am also hoping that employers would support this initiative too, in some way.
This idea may go viral (a bit like Movember) or it may not. But if you have read up to here, please pause for a moment and consider how you might spend your 'one day a year for children and young people' (#1dy4cyp) in 2013.
And if you like this campaign, please write about it too, post the link to this blog post on your Facebook page, retweet it to other people etc, etc. Or you can quietly just do it, and be a part of making the future a little bit brighter for children and young people.
So as I woke up this morning, I was mulling on this part of my day and reflecting on my post from yesterday about the need for us all to play our part in creating a more 'child-liking' world.
I am no longer young but I can imagine that if I were, this year would have troubled me lots. Whilst I hope that what fills the lives of children and young people are good or frothy or educational things, I suspect much of the bad news will have filtered through to them. As TV and Radio celebrities are accused of child abuse, as children get murdered in their primary school classrooms and as young people find it hard to get jobs and pay for higher education the world might appear to be a very unfriendly place for children and young people. If I were a young person, this year probably will not have helped me to feel great about what the future has in store for me.
As adults, we can do something about this. We can of course try to be good parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles and friends to children and young people. But perhaps there is a little bit more we can do.
With the blog post, I would like to start a small campaign to encourage every adult to commit to doing one day of voluntary work next year in support of children and young people. This could mean helping to paint a local scout hut, clearing rubbish from a local park, spending a couple of afternoons in a local children's centre reading stories, assisting a local school to rewire its wifi system, taking part in a project similar to what Worktree does in Milton Keynes or a hundred other possibilities. I am also hoping that employers would support this initiative too, in some way.
This idea may go viral (a bit like Movember) or it may not. But if you have read up to here, please pause for a moment and consider how you might spend your 'one day a year for children and young people' (#1dy4cyp) in 2013.
And if you like this campaign, please write about it too, post the link to this blog post on your Facebook page, retweet it to other people etc, etc. Or you can quietly just do it, and be a part of making the future a little bit brighter for children and young people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.jpg)
