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.

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       Given that “the next Proven Reoffending Statistics quarterly bulletin will not be published until 25 July 2013”, why did you publish your results today rather than a few weeks from now?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 now 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...

Comparing the plans: the power of consultation

Last night there was a meeting in Reading where Thames Valley PCC Anthony Stansfeld gave a presentation and was open to questioning. I did not attend because a) it is quite a long way to go, not sure my satnav would tell me where to park, I felt a tad tired and my chauffeur has every Wednesday night off and b) I am not a Reading resident (any more) and c) I don't want Mr Stansfeld to think that I am stalking him.

Nonetheless, there were people there who I know and I have heard a little about what happened. I am led to understand that Mr Stansfeld is concerned that crime prevention resources are mostly deployed to areas where there is most crime. But perhaps he did not say that.

This got me wondering about how things were changing in his approach. And so this morning I dusted off my copy of the original draft of the Police & Crime Plan for Thames Valley and compared it to the one that is now published. I only compared the forewords (because I do have some other things to do today!).

Here is a brief summary.

Out has gone:

• The opening line "The Police reduce crime primarily by catching those that commit it"
• "Rural crime committed against isolated communities is endemic"
• "Furthermore, where I believe partners are not playing their part, at whatever level of responsibility, I will take whatever action is open to me"
• "I would hope to see this police involvement extended so that Thames Valley Police can pursue by way of criminal investigation of patient safety cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed. This would include cases of neglect resulting in death"
• "I do not believe that the legislation of controlled drugs is a sensible way ahead. The rehabilitation of offenders, whether in jail or outside establishments, is key to the reduction of household burglary"
• "I will be proactive in seeking out the views of victims of crime about policing across the Thames Valley area so that I and partners can respond appropriately"
• Indeed any mention of victims...

In has come:

• "The primary purpose of the police and the criminal justice system is to reduce crime. This is achieved primarily by deterring criminals from committing crime and catching those that commit it"
• "A key priority in my Plan is preventing the criminal abuse of vulnerable people, whether they are adults or children" (much higher up in the text)
• "I do not believe that the legalisation of controlled drugs is a sensible way ahead; instead we should look to reduce burglary by rehabilitating offenders" (I am sure the 'legislation' was a typo!)
• "I believe the technical advances in ‘global positioning system’ (GPS) tagging offer a way to reduce reoffending by making the wearing of these tags a condition of early release from prison"
• "The Police and Crime Plan for the Thames Valley aims, with our many partners, to continue to reduce crime and the causes of crime within our area, and to do so with the most efficient and effective use of the public money that is made available to me" (final sentence the same except the last word is 'me' not 'us' now)

There is much that is the same although large tracts did not make the final cut (the new version is 534 words shorter that the original 1114). I have uploaded a comparison document to my Google drive if you want to have look at the two versions side by side.

You will take your own view from the comparison. But I think what it shows (on paper at least) is wiser and more circumspect understanding of the criminal justice system. The second version has more of a partnership feel about it to me with less of the admonishing tone of the first draft ("I will take whatever action is open to me"). I am glad about this. There is a greater nod towards prevention and deterrence. I am concerned that victims do not seem to have made the final version of the foreword. What happened there?

So, on the basis of this data, consultation and reflection does broadly seem to work... (and who knows maybe my critique had some impact too?)

Some perceptions of the relationships between PCCs and Chief Constables

A couple of days ago, I announced a small survey. Below I reprint the results gleaned. I hope it goes without saying this is not a statistically valid survey and I hope that no one draws any conclusions, firm or otherwise, from this data.

Nonetheless, the results are interesting and perhaps point to the need for further research...

So, the first question asked: How much do you approve of the new arrangements for holding the police to account (Police & Crime Commissioners etc)? (I asked this, to detect whether this was a factor in people's answers and see below). The answers are shown below:

(One person skipped this question)

The next question asked: Thinking of your local Police & Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable, how well do you think they are working together? (This was the main question of the survey. And although I know answers would probably have been based on remote impressions in the main, these impressions count.)

The next question asked: Which part of the country are you in? 

And the final question was: Do you work for the police service?

I have managed to apply only one filter (the rest you have to pay for!). I extracted all the people who said they approved a great deal of the new arrangements. There were 8 such respondents. Of these people, 5 said they thought their PCC and Chief were "working very well together indeed". The other three said either not sure, not working together satisfactorily or not working very well together at all.

The 8 were scattered evenly across the country (apart from the SW and none anyway in NE). 2 of the 8 worked for the police service.

So?

It would appear that the majority of people who replied did feel able to express opinions about the quality of the relationships despite (I would imagine) not knowing about the relationships at close quarters. True it is possible that those who expressed a view, did have such knowledge, but I think that is unlikely given the sample size and method of recruiting respondents (via twitter) than many did. But there was over a third who did not express a view as well.

I am not surprised at the proportion of people who said they worked for the police service. This was to be expected from my twitter feed and from interest anyway.

What next?

I do wonder how much effort many PCCs and Chiefs are putting into managing how their relationship is coming across. Should more be done? Or does this not matter one jot? If CCs and PCCs are seen as too 'pally' will this dent the impression that the PCC is there to have a robust relationship with the Chief Constable and hold them to account? Or if the relationship is perceived as 'rocky' will this damage public confidence? Will officers and staff working within the service be comforted or disturbed if the relationship between their Chief and PCC is seen as problematic? Might this impact on performance?

There is a whole heap of questions about this aspect of the new governance arrangement... (Please send your research grants this way!)

Survey: PCC & CC working relationships

I have just posted a survey on Survey Monkey. Out of curiosity, I am wondering on how well people perceive their Chief Constable & PCC to be getting on with working together. It is a pretty basic survey, but I think the results could be interesting...

SURVEY: How well are your Police & Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable working together?

Naturally I would be most grateful for any encouragement you can give to get more people to take the survey... The more data, the better!

Thanks.

UPDATE: results posted above

iPad yes (TomTom no?)

Back in the middle of May I asked a series of questions of the Thames Valley Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner. Nothing stunningly new here - but for the record (my questions in italics - their answers in bold):

1. Has Mr Stansfeld ever been issued with a secure laptop?

No

2. If not, has this option ever been discussed with him sometime in the last six months?

No

3. If the option has been discussed and not pursued, why was this? If cost was a factor, what was it judged to cost to provide Mr Stansfeld with remote secure access to appropriate systems (including email)

N/A

4. Overall, what IT / communication equipment has been provided to Mr Stansfeld?

Blackberry and ipad only at his request

5. Was the option of home secure access (via landline) to Thames Valley police / OPCC systems ever discussed? What was the outcome?
6. If not, why not?
7. If it was discussed and not pursued, how come?

[together] In response to a previous request for information the operational reasons for the PCC to use the office at Hungerford Police Station and not using his home, is to provide him with local access to secure Force systems, equipment (including a printer). The PCC has stated that he does not wish to access confidential work-related information from, or store such information within, his home (which is not seen as an appropriate secure environment).  

Stansfeld on tour: new dates announced!

Of course, I will never ever know whether my post (22/5/13) suggesting that it was about time that the Thames Valet Police & Crime Commissioner got out and about to meet his publics, had any impact but eight days later...

It would seem that Mr Stansfeld has announced a whole series of occasions where he "or his Deputy will be attending each event to give out copies Police and Crime Plan Summary and speak to the public about the role of the PCC and his priorities". The full details (posted on 30/5/13) can be found here. And here is the list:

• Abingdon Fun in the Parks, Abbey Grounds - 1st June 2013
• Marlow Town Regatta - 8th June 2013
• Reading Water Fest - 15th June 2013
• Slough Festival - 29th June 2013
• Cowley Road Carnival - 7th July 2013
• Oxfordshire County and Thame Show - 13th July 2013
• Banbury Play Day - 24th July 2013
• Aylesbury Vale in the Park Play Day - 7th August 2013
• Milton Keynes Arts Festival - 10th August 2013
• Bucks County Show - 29th August 2013
• Force Open Day - 7th September 2013 (Kidlington)
• Royal County of Berkshire Show - 21st/22nd September 2013 

The full details of each event can be found on this page.

So if you are a local Thames Valley person - do go along and offer Mr Stansfeld your views on his Police & Crime Plan (a new summary of which can be found here) and anything else that you wish to raise with him. I am sure he will be keen to listen.

Probably best if you don't wear hat though...!

Nay cast a doubt until May is out

This is has been a somewhat interesting month. During this month, I have been:

• Utterly blown away by my daughter's handiwork at artistically representing the challenges that lie ahead for a digital revolution in local public services.
• Made to think lots (and lots) about the Police & Crime Commissioner governance model (for a the key piece on this go here, or a summary here, or most recently here)
• Intrigued by the national attention that my local PCC Anthony Stansfeld has been receiving (blogs too numerous to link - just scroll down or click on the search here!)
• Made to worry whether life will imitate (humorous) art...
• Delighted to have helped Cllr Robin Stuchbury become the first ever Labour County Councillor for Buckingham
• Filmed by the BBC posing as a chauffeur for 'Thames Valet Police'!
• Driven to reveal my secret plan to solve the pot hole crisis in the country.
• Delighted to take part in the Roberto Perrone drive time show on BBC 3 Counties Radio

So quite a month!

All feedback on my blogging always welcome.

Pot holes!

Yes I know, not the usual content to this blog. But I wanted to document & record an idea I have had to solve the pothole crisis. Not being a road engineer, this idea may have been tried before and found to not be worthwhile... or maybe not!

So here is the idea in a nutshell: firms that dig up roads (or even repair them) should be financially incentivised to do an effective and long lasting job. They should be penalised if a pot hole forms around the work they did a few years previous.

All you have to do is look carefully at potholes. In my experience they rarely form out of nowhere. Almost always the small fissure that becomes a big hole starts at the seam between the original road surface and a new piece of tarmac. My view is that just like new houses and cars come with warranties, then so should repairs to / fillings in roads.

The scheme would work like this: any contractor who digs of roads would have to partake in an independent (actuarially based) warranty scheme. When their road repair / change is completed, they must inform the local road authority of the work they have done and each one would be allocated a special reference warranty number. If a pothole forms within (say) the next seven years, the warranty would kick in and would pay for the repair to the road at no cost to the local taxpayer. The new repair would be covered by the same warranty system, of course.

The contractors, individually and collectively, would have a financial interest in performing long lasting jobs as this would keep warranty costs down. They might even invest in new & better ways to repair roads!

What do you think? Is this a viable system? I am interested in your views...

For the record: secure access is NOT expensive

Although any intelligent and police savvy reader would know this anyway, I have just had it confirmed (via a FoI inquiry) that all members of Thames Valley Police chief officer team have been issued with secure laptops / computers.

As their reply says "Thames Valley Police can confirm that all Chief Officers have remote and secure access to emails and other appropriate Thames Valley systems." 

The cost per person is about £20 a year for "secure access". (Plus £582 for the laptop itself.)

You may like to recall that the interview with the Oxford Mail published on 13/5/13 said:

Yesterday he [PCC Anthony Stansfeld] said he needed to have the base at Hungerford to access the force’s computer system and store secure documents and that it would be “very expensive” to set up a secure computer at his home.

Later that week, Mr Stansfeld did not use that same reason (in bold above) as part of his explanation for why he needed the second base in Hungerford. Instead he said that he needed a place to download and print off confidential items. (His oral statement to the Police & Crime Panel on Friday 17 May is now online - I recommend that you read it.) Here is a quote from it:

Now, cross check this with the statement I received from his Office in response to another FoI inquiry shown below:

The PCC attends meetings at which confidential material is considered at various locations (e.g. Kidlington, London, etc).  Accordingly, he must take confidential material between and outside both of his offices (i.e. Kidlington and Hungerford) to discharge his functions effectively.

I have added the bold emphasis. As Mr Stansfeld is taking confidential material outside the perimeter of Hungerford police station (as I thought he would be, of course...) then it makes no difference where he prints off said material. He could almost go into his local branch of Tescos and print off the documents there. 

Now, of course, I do not know what advice Mr Stansfeld has been given in the past about how to handle confidential material. (Mr Stansfeld has cited his past experience in the Aerospace industry and was a police authority member for several years. His understanding of such matters should therefore, I imagine, be quite sophisticated.)

But the facts of the matter are now this: secure access is not expensive and printing documents off at home (carefully, of course, so as to avoid stray councillors, pets or children running off with such material..) is as secure (if not more so) than printing them off in a police station.

So with these two reasons out of the way... why is Mr Stansfeld still holding onto his base in Hungerford police station? Perhaps the independent auditor will be able to find out why...

Fields of ponies: the Secret PCC does Income Generation!

Never one to be out done, I have decided I need to have an “Income Generation Strategy”. I see that one PCC is embarking on trying to get sponsorship to make up for a budget shortfall. Here in NorthFordWestshire (or NFW as we usually abbreviate it), we can go one better! We are not just a one trick pony. With my strategy we will have whole fields of ponies munching their way through our budget shortfall!

So, having tracked down this rather nifty article on how to structure such an approach – here is my plan:

• Staff - Knowledge & Creativity: we will start making our own CSI series and sell it around the world. In fact I could play one of the lead roles in between my other tasks. Always been into AmDram a bit and I seem to have the time in between Police & Crime Panel meetings.
• Staff - Staff time: police officers at courts will be empowered & equipped to sell ice creams like cinema ushers/usherettes to make money while they are waiting to go into the court.
• Staff - As potential customers: all payslips will include adverts for personal protective equipment and late night pizzas: and we will take a cut on any sales made
• Staff - Non work expertise: all staff will be required to register their skills on a large database so that we can ask them to use these skills whenever we have a need (such as mountain climbing or cupcake preparation or translating Icelandic etc)
• Information - Patterns of performance & results: we will sell the most effective burglary methods to the highest bidder
• Information - About individual clients / users etc.: we will sell crime data to estate agents rather than making it freely available on the net. And the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) will have to pay us for information in the future.
• Physical Assets – Buildings: expect to see hoardings going up on the sides of all of our police stations and police cars. 
• Physical Assets - General Equipment: we will be selling the boxes and boxes of smart phones (the ones that we never got round to using) off to local electrical shops and car boot sales.
• Physical Assets - Specialist Equipment: All those Scenes of Crime onesies are only used once. I have a cunning plan to re-market them as fashion accessories: add a couple of strategically placed buttons, remove any stains, persuade my old private school chum who now works for Vogue and hey presto – we will have an income generation line of business that will rival Jean Paul Gautier!
• Stakeholders - As potential customers: all those people we lock up on a Saturday night are clearly in need of better ways to spend their money than on cheap vodka and shoes. From now on, as they leave the cells and pick up their wallets & purses in the morning, they will be offered a free £10 gift voucher (sponsored by a local supermarket) to buy breakfast and fruit juice. We will take a cut of whatever else they spend there…
• Stakeholders - As potential sponsors or supporters: we will be charging local legal aid solicitors for the privilege of a chair to sit down on. They will be able to stand for free, but if they want to sit down next to their clients, they will have to pay for it. Clearly the new legal aid changes are predicated on all these lawyers being fat cat leeches on the state. We will just tap them for a little more dosh.
• Stakeholders - as potential partners: no longer will we stock information leaflets from (say) local health services or housing helplines without expecting something in return in cash or kind (we don’t mind which).
• Profile - ‘Brand’ reputation: we will set up a department to secure fees to ‘approve’ the safety of local clubs and other late night venues. We won’t be offering ‘protection’ as such (they get that for ‘free’ on the local taxes) but we will be able to offer gold and platinum approval ratings for those clubs who want our response just that little bit quicker. 
• Profile - Access to media and public: we have lots of lists of people who need our services who may well be interested in other services... we are looking into this once we can get over confidentiality and all that gubbins. We are talking to local Clinical Commissioning Groups who seem to have found ways around such concerns.
• Systems and services – software: we have invested heavily in our new CRM (criminal relationship management) system. We think that it will work just as well as a means of keeping track of customers who don’t want to be tracked. This is potentially a very lucrative income stream.
• Systems and services - expertise in how things are done: we are getting rather good at DNA testing and we will be marketing this to people who want to establish parentage etc.
• Systems and services - ‘Piggy backing’ existing services: we are starting a new tie in with local car dealers to be put in touch with people who have had prangs on the public highway…
• Waste ...is someone else’s supply...? Of course in NorthFordWestshire, we don’t have any waste. We are a lean, mean, crime fighting machine!

_________________________________________________

The Secret PCC Diary until now:

• Collected diary - days one to ten
• Day 50
• Day 68
• Appointing the new Chief Constable
• PCCs must show people its worth voting (interview with the secret PCC)

Legal disclaimer: just in case you thought this series of secret PCC blogs is based upon a real person or persons: it isn't. It really isn't. Any similarity to a living PCC is entirely coincidental.

Expenses & two offices: latest news regarding Mr Stansfeld

Following the meeting of the Thames Valley Police & Crime Panel, I sent the OPCC a series of questions under the Freedom of Information Act. They have replied speedily (indeed they always do). Here are my questions (in italics), and their answers (in bold):

1) Please can you confirm the precise contract on which you have appointed the Support Officer (PCC). Mr Stansfeld is saying that this person will be working 3 days per week but the job description on the TVP website (applyonline.thamesvalley.police.uk/job/Support_Officer_PCC_/100805) states that it “is a full time role on annual hours basis (i.e. 37 x 52 = 1924 hours per year) including weekends (as necessary)”. Perhaps an easy way to clear this up (as I suspect some of the days the person is working may be quite long) is to confirm the number of hours on the contract. Is it 1924 as stated in the advert or 60% of this figure (1154) or indeed something else? 

The position was advertised as a full-time post.  The actual appointment was on a part-time basis, the precise terms of which are “Your contractual hours are 22.5 per week, which equates to 0.60 of a full-time equivalent” (i.e. equivalent to 1,170 hours per year). 

2) My attention was drawn this morning towards some guidance from the HMRC on chauffeur benefits in kind. (Here is the link, for your information: www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/hs203.pdf) Please can you confirm that Mr Stansfeld has been appraised of this requirement by the Chief Executive (or other suitable officer)?

Mr Stansfeld has been appraised of the HMRC requirements by his Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer (subject to the confirmation of their correct interpretation and application by the independent audit process to be undertaken as part of the related complaint investigation by the TV Police and Crime Panel Complaints Sub-Committee).

3) Yesterday, Mr Stansfeld stated that the reason that he needed the office in Hungerford police station was so that he could print off confidential material which he said he could not do at his home. (Although, please tell me if I misheard this.) Please can you confirm that the Mr Stansfeld leaves all such material in a secure cabinet in his office at Hungerford police station and never takes any confidential material outside the police station?

The statement issued by the Office of the PCC on his behalf (available on the PCC’s website) clarifies the operational reasons for the use of the office at Hungerford Police Station, i.e. to provide local access to secure Force systems, equipment (including a printer) and facilities and to reduce the amount of avoidable, non-productive, time he would otherwise spend travelling to Kidlington.  The PCC stated that he does not wish to access confidential work-related information from, or store such information within, his home (which is not an appropriate secure environment).  1 
The PCC attends meetings at which confidential material is considered at various locations (e.g. Kidlington, London, etc).  Accordingly, he must take confidential material between and outside both of his offices (i.e. Kidlington and Hungerford) to discharge his functions effectively.

4) Please can you also provide me with a copy of the OPCC’s policy on the handling of confidential material and other security matters.

The OPCC does not have a separate policy on the handling of confidential material and other security matters; it abides by the Thames Valley Police ‘Information Security Policy’ which, in turn, is compliant with the Government’s Security Policy Framework and ACPO’s Information Systems Community Security Policy. 

5) I also believe I heard that Mr Stansfeld said he is (will be?) engaged in work of a national nature for between 1 and 1.5 days per week. Did I hear that correctly? If so, please can you clarify the nature of these national responsibilities: what is he doing for whom about what etc? 

Mr Stansfeld stated that when not in Kidlington he may be visiting places and people elsewhere in the Thames Valley, or in London or someplace elsewhere on national issues. Mr Stansfeld is a member of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) Board of Directors, and is a representative of the APCC on the following national Boards:

• National Police Air Service (NPAS)

• Joint Counter Terrorism Board

6) What process will you be going through to appoint an independent auditor as agreed yesterday? How will the appointment be announced once you have selected someone to carry out this task? Will the announcement be concurrent with the appointment?

The Complaints Sub-Committee of the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel has requested an independent audit.  Accordingly, the responsibility for determining the process to be followed rests with the Complaints Sub-Committee, after consultation with the PCC.

The OPCC has also replied to some of my earlier questions (sent on 4 May):

please... send me the business case for the investment of public money in the second office in Hungerford Police Station, the options appraisal (where you might have considered an office in the populated Reading for example) and projected cost to the taxpayer for this second office (including the estimated expenses incurred by the PCC without the second office and with it in place and the ongoing rent/equipment/utilities etc).

This information has been well documented in the last few days.

please... confirm that the PCC is not using any transport other than his own vehicle and trains to get to his appointments (if he is using other transportation, please detail with costs)

Confirmed.

please... point me towards the web page which shows the transparent csv files listing the expenditure of the office of the PCC, including salaries, expenses, office, grants, purchases and any other costs

On the OPCC website under the Transparency heading. You will find a link to spending and the office of the OPCC

_______

So some interesting answers there which deserve more commentary. But time has run out on me for now. But if you have any observations, do please post them below. Thanks.

What next for PCC governance?

Frances Cook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform has written a provocative blog following up on the HASC report from yesterday. She highlights the apparent cronyism in lots of places. Do read her blog!

I added this comment:

I don't think local referendums are a way forward as it would lead to a patchwork of different governance structures across the country - making cross border collaboration even more difficult (and many problems). Also if one area voted against having a PCC, what would they be voting for in its place?

I think a far better approach would be to (almost) start again and decide what kind of local governance structure is really required for good joined up delivery of justice, confidence and community safety. There are several options, and much will depend upon the legislative schedule of an incoming administration. Even if a majority Labour government is elected in May 2015, organising a good replacement in time for the May 2016 PCC elections is tight, probably too tight.

So the options might include:

• Boosting the powers of the Police & Crime Panels to moderate the activity of the PCCs
• Adding in some more non execs to the PCPs in parallel (these people added much diversity in all senses of the word to the previous Police Authorities)
• Create 'mini' PCC style governance structures based upon some degree of proportionality of the votes caste - so you might end up with 3 Police & Crime 'Senators' - one Indie, one Labour and one Tory in charge.
• Shift control of policing over to the Health & Well Being boards
• Create elected police authorities

There are lots of possibilities. But almost anything has got to be better that what we have at present!

It all comes down to what do we need from policing & crime governance: what design principles can we agree upon and then let's create a structure that matches them.

Breaking news: Thames Valley to be renamed!

I am hearing reports that PCC Anthony Stansfeld wants to rename his area as

Thames Valet Police

He feels it would be more fitting to the challenges that lie ahead...

Legal disclaimer: this is a spoof report!!

Register of Interests, PCCs & PCPs (HASC report)

The Home Affairs Select Committee has published its first report into PCCs and has focused upon their declared interests. I have not yet had time to read the full report, but I thought it would be interesting to note which PCCs had responded to the HASC inquiries and which ones had not.

First by political allegiance (X/Y = number who did respond against those who did not):

• Labour: 11/2
• Conservative: 15/1
• Independent: 7/4

So in total, 7 PCCs did not respond. Here is the list of the non responders:

• Sue Mountstevens (Avon & Somerset)
• Barry Coppinger (Cleveland)
• Jane Kennedy (Merseyside)
• Winston Roddick (North Wales)
• Anthony Stansfeld (Thames Valley)
• Ron Ball (Warwickshire)
• Bill Longmore (West Mercia)

So, all Conservatives (bar the 'gift that keeps giving'...) responded and all but two Labour PCCs. But more than a third of the independent PCCs did not respond.

Curious...

In the light of my investigations into the Thames Valley PCP not really 'getting' its role, it seems as if this is not unusual. The report concludes (with my highlighting):

4. In between elections, the Police and Crime Panel is, in all but the most extreme circumstance, the only check on a PCC's power over local policing. All three of the PCP chairs we heard from believed that their Panels did not have strong powers to hold a PCC to account. Parliament has defined the power of PCPs and it is the responsibility of the PCPs to exercise their powers. We are concerned that incompetent legal advisers appear to have sought to prevent PCPs from even meeting to scrutinise key and highly questionable decisions by PCCs, for instance the suspension of the chief constable in Lincolnshire and the fiasco concerning the appointment of a "Youth Commissioner" in Kent. It is in such circumstances that a PCP chair needs to ensure that the PCP meets urgently. If they fail to do so, on the basis of wholly inappropriate legal advice or otherwise, the process of local scrutiny of the PCP role falls into disrepute. (Paragraph 11)

So the challenge is on for PCPs to grasp the nettle it seems to me, albeit with their limited powers.

Are you 'frit', Mr Stansfeld?

I am angry. So let me calm down, before I write the rest of this blog.... otherwise I might say something I may regret.

>and relax<

Back in 2007, I took on the job of being the Director of Organisation Development (Collaboration) for the six police services of the Eastern region (comprising Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex). At the time I was living in Oxford but knowing that I would soon be moving to Buckingham. The job was based in Huntingdon at Cambridgeshire Police HQ but with, obviously, a very wide patch to cover. The post was paid at Assistant Chief Constable grade: a very good salary.

• When I took on the job, did I ever consider having someone drive me around? No.
• Did I consider asking for the job to be based in Bedford (a lot closer to me)? No.
• Was I focused upon doing everything I could to improve social outcomes and value for money for other people? Yes.
• Did I pay for my own commuting to Huntingdon? Yes.
• Did I arrange for an encrypted laptop so that I could access emails and documents securely from home or indeed anywhere? Yes.
• Did I accept it was my responsibility to make the new arrangements (including all the logistics) work? Yes.
• Did I think what I was doing was in any way unusual? No.... (thousands of people commute long distances to work and find ways to function remotely). 

Now there are some people who are far more disturbed by the Thames Valley PCC's statements surrounding the 'Bullfinch' trial. Whilst I have my deep concerns, I am also very upset about the statements that he is now issuing around his reasons for having a second office and signing off his own expenses in the way that he has. As I have said, I am glad that there will now be an independent audit of these matters where all the details and intents can be properly scrutinised. I look forward to seeing more of the facts, although there are many out there already. 

But I have been wondering why I feel so angry. I think it is because it seems to me that Mr Stansfeld has all but said that commuting and driving around for work purposes, "are for the little people". As a local taxpayer, it doesn't feel to me that he is serving us, but that we are serving him...

Now I know I am not along in feeling like this. You only have to read to the comments on the local newspaper websites to know that. I have also had several emails from people thanking me for raising all these issues. And while I wonder whether I have become an unwitting supporter of the view that all politicians are untrustworthy (which I do not believe!), I know I had to expose to all this. But maybe I am in a small grumpy minority of people who are concerned about all this?

So this got me wondering whether Mr Stansfeld would be prepared to face and listen to his constituents in a series of public meetings. Or even just one public meeting would be good. 

So I looked through his expense claims for February and March. (You can see them all here although why April's is yet to show intrigues me.) There are meetings listed with High Sheriffs, council leaders, local police commanders and various partnership forums. As far as I can see (and I am happy to be corrected) there is only one public meeting shown: on the 28 March in Bracknell. You can read details about the meeting here. "Visitors to the meeting can table a question for the commissioner in advance" says the website. You can read the minutes of the item here and overall here. As far as I can see, there no were no members of the public present nor were any questions tabled beforehand. 

So I am thinking it is about time that Mr Stansfeld held a truly open public meeting where he can respond to unscripted questions from the floor from the people who elected him... We are now six months in to PCCs, it would seem about right time to do this. 

So how about it Mr Stansfeld? At least one public meeting would be good, more would be even better! 

Or are you 'frit' of being directly accountable to the people who elected you?

Indexing governance

I have been blogging lots about the Thames Valley PCC and the Police & Crime Panel in recent days and weeks. I thought it might be helpful to have a blog that could act as an index to these blog postings.

• This is the first blog where I highlighted the facts around Mr Stansfeld's two offices and his expense claims is here. It was this blog that sparked national interest in this whole story.
• Then the Mail on Sunday picked up the story and broadcast the appointment of a support worker (aka driver /chauffeur). This is my blog that discussed the MoS article.
• The following day, Mr Stansfeld responded with an interview in the Oxford Mail. In this blog post, I discussed his response.
• Meanwhile the 'Bullfinch' trial reaches a conclusion. Mr Stansfeld issued a statement. In this blog I explained my misgivings about his statement.
• And I decided to dress up as a chauffeur and attend the meeting of the Police & Crime Panel last Friday. This blog explains my reasons for doing so and a little of what happened.
• During the meeting, Mr Stansfeld said more as to how this whole situation arose and his reasoning behind it. This blog was my unpicking of his reasoning.
• But the meeting (thankfully!) is about far more than this issue. In this blog I critiqued the role of the PCP and how well it is fulfilling its function of holding the PCC to account.
• The PCP also discussed the 'Bullfinch' trial. This blog was my view on their discussion.

I suspect that Mr Stansfeld would prefer to paint all my postings as politically motivated and seek to dismiss them on this basis. My critique of the mostly Conservative members of the PCP may think likewise. I will concede that political tribalism is part of this and I would not be pursing these matters quite so assiduously if Mr Stansfeld represented the Labour Party. (I am sure others would of course...) However, I would still be writing about these matters and indeed I would be using Labour party mechanisms to challenge his actions and hold him to account. 

Indeed, my blogging in defence of the appointment of Paris Brown as the Kent Youth Commissioner is evidence, I hope, of my capacity not to be politically myopic. (And yes, the irony of my comments about the Daily Mail /Mail on Sunday is not lost on me!)

Because in the end this is all about good governance (a standard that I had a small hand in helping to form in my role at the Office for Public Management). I would contend that we are not seeing much of that at the moment here in Thames Valley (in the way that we are in other places).

Finally, out of interest I dug out my figures on 'approval ratings' of the 41 PCCs which I calculated as the % of the population that voted multiplied by the % of first preference votes that the PCC received. Mr Stansfeld got a rating of 4.5%. It was one of the lowest. 

We must be careful not to tread on any issues that the serious case review will be looking into

Thus said the Chair of the Police & Crime Panel yesterday as he opened the agenda item on the 'Bullfinch' trial. (The Oxford Mail has done an excellent & detailed summary of the case: link here)

I was struck by these wise words from the Chair. I still have huge misgivings about the statement put out by Mr Stansfeld (click here) as it seems to me to do precisely the opposite of what the PCP Chair was suggesting was appropriate. What do you think?

The discussion that ensued was greatly enhanced by information and wisdom from the Chief Constable on how the police service has begun the process of radically reshaping how child abuse is tackled. If I have this correct, they have gone from being mostly reactive to being mostly proactive. (But please correct me if I have this wrong.)  The CC said at one point: "if you look for this kind of crime, you can often find it." The CC also said that whatever arrangements are put in place "we mustn't make young people scared of all adults". Simple but profound words. (She may even have been quoting one of the young women involved at this point... my notes are not clear.)

Contrast this with Mr Stansfeld who said (if my hearing was accurate - again happy to be corrected) "one of the difficult matters in this case is that the children who were being abused and raped did not see it as a problem at first". On the one hand, I kind of know where he is coming from (trying to explain why these are crimes are difficult to establish and investigate -  I would interpret) but on the other hand such a statement is very close to suggesting that the children were complicit in the crimes perpetrated against them.

These are very complex matters and I am certainly no expert. But it feels to me that some of the statements made by Mr Stansfeld are in a similar domain to suggesting that young women should not go out dressed in minimal clothes as they would only have themselves to blame if they get raped... I do not know what Mr Stansfeld's intentions are behind some of the words he used yesterday and in his published statement, or what he really thinks about all this. I just know I feel uncomfortable with some of his language, as I have blogged before. Although I did note what I interpret as some rowing backwards yesterday. When asked by Cllr Dee Sinclair whether he really thought that Human Rights Laws were part of the cause of the abuse of these young girls, Mr Stansfeld did say (I think) that it was the rules which allowed the girls to abscond which needed review rather than the laws on Human Rights.

However, that statement is still getting close to making comments on a case that is now under review...

As I mentioned below, I found it difficult to detect any coherence in comments by Cllr Kieron Mallon about quangos being part of the causes of all this. It was probably the poor acoustics in the room that prevented my full understanding of the points he was making.

At another point, Mr Stansfeld revealed that when he was a boy he had once been on an exchange visit to a Banardos home. He explained pointedly that the children there were not allowed out in the evenings. I think the implication of this is that Mr Stansfeld may believe that care homes for looked after children should operate rigid curfews and keep children locked up... Or does he? Clarification would be helpful here.

... but not until after the serious case review...!

Anyway, enough said. This is a very tragic case. I can only hope that the girls / young women involved will be able to make the most of their lives. Perhaps that fact that several men have now been convicted and will spend many years in gaol, will help. I also hope that all the agencies involved, including the police, really learn and apply the lessons from this case.

Scrutiny: it's not about the hat!

One of my regrets about yesterday's stunt (now also reported on you tube by the way) is that whilst it highlighted the story about the expenses, two offices and the new chauffeur, it meant that other matters were not so well reported. I guess that is the nature of news coverage.

But this is why we have blogs...!

So I now get to cover the aspects of yesterday's Police & Crime Panel meeting which I think deserve further discussion. So here is some more news:

Public meeting is attended by members of the public!

I did not count, nor did I ask them who they were, but there were about twenty people sitting and observing the meeting yesterday. As a fraction of the Thames Valley public, this number is very small. But people were there. Certainly this is more than ever attended meetings of the police authority, I reckon. So in this respect the PCC model of governance is working (a little).

Rural crime is up... or is it down? (good scrutiny)

I am afraid that I cannot recall who asked this question of the PCC but he was challenged to say whether he had found a way to measure rural crime yet (one of the PCC's priorities). There is a problem in defining rural crime and then accurately recording it, apparently. How small does a conurbation have to be to defined as rural, for example? I live in a largish village on edge of Buckingham. Is all crime locally rural (as, say, compared to Oxford or Reading)? Or does the PCC really mean crimes such as thefts of tractors, misuse of red diesel or sheep rustling?

The public have a right to know.

It was difficult to hear all the PCC's answer but I think in summary it was 'I am still working on this' (six months after his election where one of his pledges was about tackling rural crime).

This was scrutiny in action. Tick! Perhaps the PCC will now go away and work this out.

Whereas on the other hand...

Breaking news: Thames Valley Police is selling the family copper (not so good scrutiny)

The Deputy Chief Constable gave an extensive presentation about the plans to sell off approximately £22m worth of local police stations which will also reduce revenue costs by approximately £2.1m every year.  As you would expect, the DCC was asked several questions by the panel about what fixed police presence will be left in town centres once all the police stations have been "replaced locally", and just what "replaced locally" might actually mean in practice.

However, remember, the PCP is there to scrutinise the PCC, not the police service. The job of holding the police service to public account is for the PCC to do now... So instead, these are the questions from the panel to the PCC that I would have liked to have heard, but did not:

• Please tell us Mr Stansfeld, how will you and the OPCC monitor the impact of these changes on local crime levels and more critically local levels of confidence and fear of crime?
• What have you done so far to investigate and challenge these plans being put forward by the Chief Constable and her team?
• Since you are the voice of the public in these matters, Mr Stansfeld, please tell us how you will be engaging with the publics in the places about to lose their local police station (hint: they won't be happy!)
• The presentation given by the DCC was focused mostly on saving money, unsurprisingly. How will you introduce a bit more value and values to the discussions?
• The broad thrust of these plans will be to take police stations from being in the centres of towns to being on the edges. How happy are you with this, commissioner? 
• How do you think people might vote in three years time if they judge you to have been complicit in making their towns feel less safe and little less like a traditional English town?
• What do you think your role as PCC should be in examining these plans.... what questions have you been asking? What plans do you have to hold he CC to account for these proposed changes?
• Will you commit to a 24/7 police facility in Reading town centre once the main police station is closed? (Oh hang one - the PCC was asked that question by Cllr Page... and for the record the PCC said he would not, by the way).

This was not scrutiny in action! This was the PCP defaulting into being a quasi (and fairly toothless) police authority. In my view, the PCP needs to get more of a grip of their role.

For example when is second transfer going to appear on the agenda of the PCP? I assume the PCC and CC have begun discussions about this? Is the panel going to scrutinise the PCC on this?

New ASB Legislation... huh?

Councillor Tony Page (who was on top form yesterday by the way and is one of the few members of the panel to get its scrutiny role) asked a question about the item on page 27 of the agenda documents entitled Managing the introduction of the new ASB Legislation. He inquired as to the views of the PCC on this legislation and how he might seek to influence it (I think). He highlighted how people are telling him that the new laws will lead to a 'bun fight' in the courts.

Just a reminder again, this was in the agenda papers. Indeed the legislation has been widely trailed in Government announcements and (I think) is in the coalition agreement.

What did the PCC have to say about this? Not a lot. Indeed, I would contend, he gave a very good impression of not having read the agenda papers. How did the panel react? With muted acquiescence. If I had been in the chair, I would have asked the PCC if he had actually read the papers as far as page 27...

Stop press: PCP member asks an unscripted question!

It would seem that the PCP has to submit all their questions in advance which makes for, shall we say, a less than dynamic and gripping dialogue with the PCC. Why?

Yes, occasionally one or another of the PCP goes a bit 'off piste' such as Councillor Kieron Mallon (of Cherwell District Council who is something of the Boris Johnson of the PCP) who seemed to suggest, at one point I think, that quangos were to blame for the "Bullfinch" girls being abused in Oxford...

However, overall, the process felt more like a school debating club than (say) a parliamentary select committee. So my suggestion to the PCP is that the questioning should be more fluid, tenacious and challenging to the PCC!

______________

I will leave things here.

The one main topic yet to cover is the recent "Bullfinch" trial and conviction of Oxford men found guilty of abusing and raping young girls. This was also discussed yesterday and I have some comments to make about the role of the PCP and PCC in this matter. So please watch this space.

More light, less heat

The Police & Crime Panel today decided that there should be an independent audit of the two offices / expenses matters that has been "distracting" the PCC over recent days. This is a good decision, and I look forward to the outcome. (For the record, if you are the auditor hired to carry out this task reading this, I would be happy to help!)

But what emerged today from the meeting makes interesting reading, I think.

(I qualify what I am about to report with a warning note: it may not be 100% accurate. Unfortunately the meeting was held in a committee room without a public address system or induction loop. So my colleague Roy and I found it pretty hard to hear all of what was being said. I would add that the only two people who we could hear crystal clearly were the Chief and Deputy Chief Constables who spoke clearly and with great, wise authority. I hope the next time the PCP meets in public session they do so in a place with a proper sound system.)

Mr Stansfeld justified his need for a second office on the basis that he needed to access confidential documents and emails easily. He said he could have done this on a secure laptop as he judged it would not be wise to print them to read at home. Hence he needed the office at Hungerford in order to be able to print off and read confidential documents securely.

I say: 

1. It is possible to read documents on screen. He could even have a large screen installed. 
2. Moreover (and this is critical) if he only prints, reads and then leaves the documents behind in the Hungerford police station office then that is more secure than doing the same at home. (Although the most secure arrangement is to leave documents on an encrypted laptop, as even a police station can be burgled or someone else might access the documents in hard copy.) But if he takes the printed documents out of the police station then that is no more secure than printing them off at home. At which point the need for the second office, on this basis, evaporates.
3. This is a different reason to the one he gave to the Oxford Mail interview just a few days ago where he is reported to have said "he needed to have the base at Hungerford to access the force’s computer system and store secure documents and that it would be “very expensive” to set up a secure computer at his home". There was no mention of a secure laptop being very expensive today. Could this be in reaction to a FoI inquiry I submitted two days ago asking about whether he had ever been offered or supplied with a secure laptop? The grounds for the second office appear to be shifting sands. What do you think?
4. If it is established that Mr Stansfeld does not leave all the documents in Hungerford police station, what will his reason be then?

Mr Stansfeld said that he was not a young man and getting around Thames Valley, locating car parks in strange places and doing over 600 miles in a week meant he was getting very tired. His driver will help with all that and take notes at meetings for him too. And Thames Valley is the biggest non metropolitan police force, he said.

I say: 

1. He knew the territory before he applied to become a candidate. After all he sat on the police authority for several years. 
2. He is not the only person who needs to cover the patch. What would Mr Stansfeld say if (for example) the Chief Executive of the Thames Valley Probation Service made the same case? Would he back him having a driver for three days a week? He can say so here...
3. Thames Valley is the biggest non met force by numbers of officers NOT by geography. Thames Valley (as the meeting mentioned) is 2200 square miles. Dyfed Powys, for example, is 4188 square miles (almost twice the size and with slow road links). To my knowledge, the Dyfed Powys PCC has not sought to have a driver.
4. I would estimate that nowhere in Thames Valley is much further than about one hour's drive from police HQ in Kidlington, Oxford.
5. In the 20 working days in March he claimed for 1334 miles. That is under 70 miles a day, or on average 334 miles per week. How does that compare to your mileage, dear reader?
6. If his driver is only employed for three days a week, what happens on the other two days? Will Mr Stansfeld have to arrange his schedule around his driver?
7. If Mr Stansfeld needs more time to do the job (and I do sympathise with the scale of the task - really I do), why not stop being a councillor in West Berkshire?

The Chief Executive of the Office of the Police Commissioner reported that on investigation and with assistance from specialist advisers, they have now discovered that the expenses being charged did not quite comply with HMRC rules. (Avid readers will know that I specifically raised this before and was told that the expenses regime did comply.) Mr Stansfeld also stated (and the Chief Exec concurred) that he delegated the task of doing his expenses to his staff. On questioning, he was not sure how many times he had visited the Hungerford office.

I say: 

1. If staff at the OPCC were just following existing procedures, how many other people may have been submitting erroneous claims? Is the PCC and/or the CEO on the case?
2. Did they read the guidelines I sent them (via a link) before they replied to me?
3. I understand that the expenses form filling can be delegated, but the act of signing the form cannot be. He could easily have said, "don't bother with those miles from Home to Kidlington, I won't be putting those against expenses". Could he not?
4. After all this, will the PCC be keeping a closer record of his whereabouts. I presume the driver at least will keep a log?
5. Does Hungerford police station have an electronic access system? In which case it will be possible to ascertain when he visited, I would imagine. 

There is more to say about the meeting this morning but this blog is already long enough. And wine calls! Although as a Chauffeur, I suppose I ought to be drinking whisky with my driving gloves on...

BREAKING NEWS!

Meanwhile, please enjoy my few minutes of fame on the local news tonight! Click here. 3 minutes and 16 seconds in... yours truly!