This blog is mainly about the governance and future of policing and crime services. (Police & Crime Commissioners feature quite a lot.) But there are also posts about the wider justice system. And because I am town councillor and political activist, local & national issues are covered a little, as well.

Friday, January 31, 2014

Pledge to buzz off

Do you remember when Paul Daniels said he would leave the country if Labour won the 1997 general election? (But where does he live now?)

I predict that between now and May 2015, there will be a succession of celebrities, bankers, property owners and company directors who will be rolled out in the pages of the Sun, Express and Mail saying that they too will leave the country if Labour are elected to power.

So I thought I would be helpful and create an easy to sign certificate for these would be ex-pats:


This is not copyright so, if you are like Paul Daniels, please feel free to download, copy off, sign and upload to your twitter account or blog.

Who is going to sign this first?

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Transforming the Probation Service (or should that be 'terrorforming'..?)

Yesterday, I learnt some more about what the Government is doing to our probation service. It has been called 'transforming rehabilitation'. From my understanding, it feels more like terraforming or even terrorforming... the probation services.

As I tweeted a couple of days ago: in a world where a joined up justice system remains a pipe dream, to fragment it further into NPS & CRCs is dangerously incompetent

Evidently the government is speeding ahead with these reforms in the hope that all will be done, dusted and 'unpickable' in time for the next election (which I presume the government is expecting to lose?) This speed is unseemly and high risk. The chance of significant cracks opening up in a service that is already straining to make rehabilitation work is, in my view, highly likely.

But allow me to take a longer term view and imagine that the new arrangements remain for some years to come. These are my predictions of what will happen:
  • There will be slow but inexorable exodus of experienced probation officers from both the Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service. These will be replaced by more junior staff with fewer qualifications. 
  • Rehabilitation rates (as measured by re-convictions for example) will not improve in most areas and, in a few will, worsen. The government of the day will ensure there are one or two flagships who do manage to make improvements (but the level of central support to achieve this will be glossed over).
  • Criminal justice agency partners (the other parts of the National Offender Management Service, the police, local authorities, housing agencies etc) will become very frustrated that where there was one organisation to liaise with there will now be two or even three if you include the contract management structure from regional NOMS. 
  • The CRCs will develop robust (but covert) strategies to get more of their clients reassessed as high risk so that they can shift responsibility over to the NPS. They will do this saying publicly that it is all about ensuring community safety. Privately they will be glad that this will improve their rehab rates (and therefore Payments by Results) and reduce their workload.
  • In contrast the NPS will do all that it can to assess 'objectively' an offender as low to medium risk and make the CRC pick them up as a client. However, this will increase the chances that offenders will be 'breached' and sent back to jail. More offenders will return to jail as a consequence.
  • Some offenders will fall between stools.
  • Staff at an operational level will become even better at 'gaming' the targets & objectives to ensure their backs are covered. 
  • Payment by Results will be replaced as the owners of the CRCs will quickly realise they are not getting any return on their investments. 
  • Overtime, the CRCs will be bought out such that there will only be between two and three owners. These organisations might be hedge funds or some of the existing private sector players in the justice 'market place'. Some of the architects of this new model who currently work in the Ministry of Justice will find their way onto the boards of these companies.
  • The National Probation Service will creak and be broken down again into smaller local units. These too will then be outsourced and sold off. The remaining vestiges of NOMS will struggle to contract manage the new CRCs and the new local NPS mark two units
I know this is a bleak picture but probably the risk register for this programme of change reads far worse. I will continue to admire the grit, compassion and determination of all the staff involved in this grand exercise of deck chair moving. I am sure they will make it work as best they can. And I hope their physical and mental health remain intact.

The challenge will come in May 2015 if a Labour (led?) government is elected as to what they will do with the mess of governance left behind by the current administration. If I were in charge, I would invest in top notch, commercially wise and wily contract managers in NOMS to squeeze every ounce of outcomes out of the CRCs and be very bullish about any clients being reassessed as higher risk. And I would do this as a deliberate strategy to make either the owners default their contract or give up the ghost. On this basis,  progressively, I would bring the CRCs back under public control. 

What would you do?

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Come on Vodafone (and Three, EE and Virgin etc)

Yesterday I took part in a Guardian Public Leaders discussion on digital policing. The discussion was wide ranging and the panel included two people (yes that is TWO people) from Vodafone. You can see the panel list and discussion here.

As we were talking about online crime as part of the discussion, I posted this question three times (in slightly different versions):
Please can you justify how you (Vodafone and other phone providers) charge people who have had their mobile phones stolen and then used to engage in fraudulent activity. You have had the technology for years to add a bar/threshold on mobile phone use - why have you not applied that to contract phone users?
Did I get an answer...? What do you think!

For me it is about time that those who (almost certainly accidentally, I would imagine and hope) collude with internet based crime are held to account. And I include credit card companies, banks, ISPs, mobile phone companies (and the like) who, at times, have profited from the fraud and abuse going on in the virtual world.

So what about it everyone? Time to pull the plug on fraudsters and abusers, whose crimes you are helping to facilitate? I know that you have done lots to make such crimes more difficult - but there is still more to do!

I don't doubt it is complicated to do all this and I expect the criminals are moving fast too. But you could just respond to my question above...?

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Digital policing: what next?

The Guardian are hosting one of their regular Friday lunchtime webchats on this subject tomorrow. There are some excellent panelists lined up to seed the debate and I am honoured to be taking part. The prompt questions include:
  • Are the digital skills of police forces up to scratch and, if not, why not and what are the implications?
  • What technologies are available that will enhance policing?
  • What examples are there of excellent digital policing?
  • What skills and resources do police need improve their use of digital?
  • How can we share good digital practice across police forces?
...and I thought digital policing was all about catching light fingered thieves.... (I'll get my coat)

Last May (where did those months go!) I facilitated an event on digital local services as part of my work with ITW. It was an informative and inspirational day which sought to examine the hurdles ahead for local councils and other services wishing to 'go digital'. It was also a joy for me that day to work with my daughter, Jess Harvey, who produced this visual summary of many of the key points that were raised:


There is a full 7Mb version of this pic here if you wish to download it.

I look forward to the debate tomorrow lunchtime. 

270114 | 1232 UPDATE: The Guardian have published their round up of some of the key comments made during the online discussion. You can access it here.

Monday, January 20, 2014

Crowd sourcing the shape of things to come (policing and crime governance)

OK. To cut to the quick: like many people concerned with the future of policing and community safety outcomes, I think the current PCC based governance structure needs to be replaced as soon as possible. The question is with what? I will go into my rationale (briefly) further on, but here is my proposed replacement, in a fairly small nutshell:

The 40+ force model in England & Wales needs replacing with one that is corralled into about ten Strategic Justice Boards. Community policing priorities would be determined by council Local Justice Boards (similar to the Stevens Commission) and led by local members. These would be the building blocks for local accountability and would be coterminous with Health & Well Being Boards (with whom they would have much in common.) The LJBs would also have some influence over the practice of other justice related bodies.

The Strategic Justice Boards would be elected every four years. These SJBs would consist of between 7 and 9 people which, by dint of using a proportional electoral system, would reflect both majority and minority political interests (including independents) in a fair way. The person who received the most votes would become the de facto ‘Strategic Justice Commissioner’, and the others her/his deputies. The SJBs would appoint the Chief Constable, Chief Prosecution Officer, Chief Offending Management Officer (and so forth). They would set precepts and budgets, commission other allied (third sector) services, drive forward collaboration, coordinate strategic / ‘non community policing’ etc.

SJB decision making would be scrutinised by a small but adequately funded body elected by a standing conference of all LJB members once every two years. This ‘Justice Panel’ would have the power to call in and challenge any decisions made by the SJB. Three or more LJBs would also have the power to call in decisions. SJBs and LJBs would be statutorily required to consult with the public and place improved victim outcomes, reducing the fear of crime and improved confidence in the justice system at the heart of all that they do. SJB and LJB members would have both geographic and specialist concerns to focus upon.

I would be the first to admit that this model is not complete and needs refining (hence the title of this blog). I am very happy to hear about what you foresee as problems with this model, how you would improve it or indeed why it cannot possibly work (etc.) Please get in touch!

And as for the reasons why (in no particular order):
  • Systems of public governance that are overly dependent upon the calibre of single individuals are hazardous if not downright dangerous. Efficient decision making is good, but not better than effective decision making.
  • 40+ systems of IT / HR / serious crime investigation (etc etc) need to give way to a smaller number which will open up the channels for more efficient working and greater evidence based practice.
  • Individual citizens and communities want to know to whom to go to complain and influence local policing and justice services. PCCs are not nearly local enough.
  • The justice agencies need to be joined up at the level of budget and governance: only this will properly drive collaboration and partnership working forward.
  • Tribal politics has its part to play when elections happen but justice and policing services are too precious and important to us all to allow narrow tribalism to dominate. A pluralist, proportional board is more likely to make better decisions in the long term interests of all.
  • Good scrutiny is essential and needs to be built in from the start (and not added as a limp afterthought as happened with the current police & crime panels).
  • Local government leaders are most concerned with their locality and creating a board made up council leaders (as advocated by the Stevens Commission) is impractical, in my opinion and arguably unconstitutional (in that it would involve central government dictating to local government who should join a strategic policing board).
  • The governance of policing cannot now be allowed to slip back into something like police authorities which though they had their advantages (not least in their diversity), were mostly invisible to the public. 
  • By dint of local political demographics, in several areas, the PCC selection processes have become more important than the electoral ones. This has also resulted in a set of PCCs that does not reflect the diversity of society and has the potential to damage community relations between the police and the public.
But what do you think?

Should we make this system of governance happen?

And if this does not happen, what should happen?

I understand that the Conservative Party are considering expanding the role of the PCCs to encompass more (direct budgetary and commissioning) power (by a single individual) over other justice agencies. Do you want to see this happen?

(And for the constitutional geeks: yes you are correct. There would be insufficient time between the 2015 general election and the 2016 PCC election to put my arrangements into place. But there are ways around this…)

Finally I would like to record my thanks to the John Roberts, Roy Bailey, and Fran├žoise Richardson of the Reading Criminal Justice Association for convening the conference last Saturday and to everyone who came along, especially our lightening speakers. It was a thoroughly useful and stimulating day. As facilitator, I was able to dip into various conversations although (as facilitator), I was slightly less engaged in those conversations than I would have liked to have been. The conversations on that day have helped me formulate the ideas above. Please watch this space for a report of the day that Roy is assembling. 

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Follow the leader!

Many people in management positions think they can just claim to be a leader. This is not so. Equally people in leadership positions think that they can lay claim to being a manager. This is also not true.

Leadership is an honour that is earned and awarded as a consequence of people following your ideas & example and often being prepared to do so even when this is not easy or comfortable. So no one can claim to be a leader. Leadership is acclaimed.

And then there are leaders (who are not managers but may well be politicians or chairs of boards) who try to claim that improvements (never the opposite of course...) in results with which they have had little or no real influence over, are in fact down to them. But this is not so: good management is performed with due sweat and focus. Management is enacted with people (not wafted down from on high).

There are many managers who become leaders by dint of their vision and inspiration. And indeed there are some leaders who develop a focus and a role which means they edge into management (although I think that this can be hazardous).

But please do not conflate leadership and management: they are not one and the same.

And also be very suspicious of leaders who wish to claim responsibility for results in the good times but are suddenly unavailable when things are not so good.

Meanwhile, here is an extract from a recent meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee:

Q220 Mr Clappison: In making the case for your posts, may I ask each of you what you regard to be your most significant achievement?

Anthony Stansfeld: I set three priorities, but it is always difficult in an area as diverse as Thames. One was to reduce household burglary, which I have done very effectively, I hope-when I say I have done it, I mean the police have done it. I set another one on vulnerable people. You are aware of what went on in Oxford and the serious problems we had with that. Some 25 extra police officers were moved into child sexual abuse and exploitation. We are putting together multi-agency hubs to sort that out through the three areas, which is frightfully important. It is no good the police and everybody else doing it in isolation; that doesn’t work. You have got to operate together in one office.

I made one that was slightly contentious, which was rural crime, but two thirds of my population live in rural areas or small towns, and we had a massive problem with serious organised crime and the stealing of heavy machinery and plant, allied with intimidation across a wide area. We have reduced that quite a lot, but I have got a long way to go on that. I think that my three priorities have not been entirely achieved, but we have made huge progress on all three.


And here is a link to the most recent performance data for Aylesbury Vale where I live. There are some ups and downs… I wonder why...

For the 999th time: targets do not work!

Somehow, this idea that setting targets improves performance and standards across the public sector and the commercial world has gripped politicians, chief execs and managers in a haze of long running hysteria that is only matched by a belief in witchcraft from the 17th century.

And I really cannot be bothered to go over again, the arguments for why targets do not work. (But if you really want to know, here are links to my other blog posts or just read anything by Simon Guilfoyle or John Seddon. And if want to go back a bit, why not read about W. Edwards Deming too.)

So I refuse to get all hot under my collar about the latest 'scandal' about the police fiddling crime data. Anyone who has been involved with the police service (as I have been for 25 years) knows that crime data is often (to use a technical term) 'finagled'! But then so are education performance league tables, and health stats, and the government's own research into PbR etc etc etc...! Why? Because people want to put on a good show, don't like getting beaten up or bullied (or 'performance managed' as it often called), think it doesn't really matter anyway, everyone's doing it, because it isn't really lying to guild the truth a little and so forth. And the fact that every senior manager and politician knows this but then seeks to ignore it or pretend that it can be smoothed out with ethical audits of data collection is living in la la land.

OK. Maybe I am being a bit polemical here. But seriously, when parliamentary select committees start putting on severe expressions and wanting to expose this scandal in policing, and the Daily Mail publishes articles entitled "How we can't trust the crime figures: After Plebgate, now watchdog says police statistics are unreliable", I think I am allowed a bit of hyperbole myself!

So what to do? I have been trying to do my bit by a) exposing the mythology of targets and b) asking the good people at ONS if they could make the Crime Survey of England and Wales have a bit more geographical granularity. Please see my blog post here as a starting point. And then I have been involved in a conversation with them:

191113 Email to crimestatistics@ons.gsi.gov.uk: Would it be feasible to have this survey broken down into police areas? I look forward to your reply. Many thanks

251113 Reply: Theoretically, police force area data are available from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, although due to reductions in sample sizes, we do not feel estimates at this geography level are sufficiently robust and we would advise against using them. 

271113 My response back to them: Many thanks for your helpful response. As psychology graduate, I appreciate the issue of sample size and significance etc. Are you able to estimate how much extra resource would be required to increase the samples to a size whereby individual forces & PCCs could more reliably use the data to compare trends over time and across the country? If so, I would be keen to know what that resource would be. Thank you.

161213 Their reply: My apologies for the slow reply. The difficulty with considering the sample size is that it varies for different crime type estimates. In order to get an overall count of crime at force level, the sample size may not need to be a great deal larger than it is currently. However, in order to measure specific types of crime by force, the sample would need to be extremely large. We're investigating whether we can feasibly calculate some figures for you, but I hope this information is still useful. 

161213 My most recent email to them: Many thanks for your email and insights contained therein. Most useful. I am trying to establish the principle of whether NCS E&W data could be collected in such a way that local communities would be able to know about trends in crime in their areas that are not dependent on reporting crimes to the police (which we know to be an underestimate and unreliable for other reasons). This would allow people to judge how safe their area and critically appraise the performance of their Police & Crime Commissioner. Whilst the link between what PCCs do and local crime figures (as measured by your surveys) is at best tenuous, it is the key measure that the government used (in part) to justify the value of PCCs. Please continue to investigate the feasibility of whether such figures can be calculated. Thank you.

And that is where the trail ends for the time being. But I am hopeful that this could lead to something. But I am just me. What could be achieved if it were the Public Accounts Select Committee or Home Affairs Select Committee that were asking these questions of ONS? Has the Home Secretary ever asked such questions?

I wonder...


UPDATE 0912|160114: As if my magic, up pops my own PCC with this headlined story in Police Oracle. Force targets 'will improve performance' says PCC. Ah well...

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Aylesbury Vale CCG Conflict of Interest (part 4)

Last night I received this reply to my last email from Lou Patten, Chief Office of Aylesbury Vale CCG. (Part three blog below: with my letter to her and links to parts one and two)
Dear Jon
Re: Aylesbury Vale CCG Conflict of Interest
Thank you for our email dated Wednesday 8th January regarding your ongoing queries about our conflict of interest policy and behaviours.
In terms of the Companies House records for Vale Health, I have relayed your comments back to the Company Secretary so that he can contact you directly once the process of updating the annual return has been undertaken.
With reference to your concern about Vale Health Ltd, I write to confirm that Aylesbury Vale CCG is the lead contractor for the Out of Hours service and Minor Injuries & Illness Unit (MIIU) that is contracted through Bucks Urgent Care, of which Vale Health is a partner within a Joint Venture arrangement. It is important to note that the existing contract with Bucks Urgent Care was awarded by the Buckinghamshire Primary Care Trust (not the CCG, as it was before our time) and passed to us as a legacy contract.
In terms of wider commissioning processes, it is our intention to be as open and transparent throughout the whole commissioning cycle, as this gets the best results for our patients. We actively seek to engage our stakeholders in helping us describe what the ‘gold standard’ service looks like. This engagement will include not only our public and patients but also potential providers of those services, as this offers the greatest opportunity for developing innovative and high quality services.
As you state, strategic commissioning is a complicated process to determine the health needs, wants and preferences of our community. Within this large and multi modal process we aim to offer our public, patients and all stakeholders – including potential providers of services – the opportunity to influence not only the shape of our strategy but also how individual services should be commissioned.
For example, we need to take into account the views of local hospital Consultants and GPs when we describe services for patients, as they have significant intelligence about the clinical quality and safety of the services being shaped for procurement. Such discussions therefore include clinicians from several of our local hospital providers, who are arguably part of your ‘systemic’ network of interests, as their hospital could be intending to bid for the service.
Where commissioning and procurement decisions have to be made, our Conflict of Interest policy gives us clear guidance on how to handle actual or perceived conflicts. If our Executive team were conflicted to the point that there were not enough non-conflicted members to be quorate then the decision would be passed to the Governing Body.
We remain of the view that we cannot remove ourselves from the many perceived or actual network of interests across our health and social care commissioners and providers. However, we do not see this as a systemic problem, rather as an opportunity to embrace our stakeholders’ engagement in order to maximise innovation and high quality commissioning in the knowledge that we have a very clear process for handling commissioning decisions in the event of a perceived or actual conflict of interest.
Yours sincerely
Lou Patten
Chief Officer
Aylesbury Vale CCG
__________

Here is my reply to her:

Dear Lou

Thank you for your reply to my last email. Many thanks for ensuring that the Vale Health Secretary will alert me when the process of updating the annual return has been undertaken. Thank you also for the information about Vale Health and the legacy contract that the CCG inherited.

Of course, like you, I see the value in engaging with the widest possible set of people in developing your commissioning plans. However, I fail to understand how this justifies many members of your Executive Team having a personal financial interest in the outcomes of that commissioning process. It seems to me that the current arrangements mean that:
  • Other commercial / non-commercial providers are not party to, in the same way, the deliberations of the CCG. In other words, by having such a predominant interest in one commercial provider, the CCG is supporting a non-level playing field for all potential bidders / providers. Is this fair?
  • Aside from being transparent about what interests different parties hold (and I note that you have not addressed my concern about the absence of any accessible information on your website) and arrangements to ‘step outside the room’ when a critical decision is being taken, you seem relaxed about all other ways in which the interests of the Executive Team might influence the spending of public money. If this is never an issue, why do members of government have to place their investments in blind trusts? 
Moreover, you do not seem to countenance the possibility that the fact that members of the Executive team have financial interests in a provider (not just Vale Health, but others too for all that I currently know) might possibly have a bearing one day on the provision of publicly funded health services to the extent that commissioning becomes structured more around financial gain than health gain.

Indeed you seem to embrace the advantages of having a majority of your Executive team being shareholders in a local commercial (for-profit) provider “as an opportunity to embrace our stakeholders’ engagement in order to maximise innovation and high quality commissioning”. I am really not sure that the general public would see it in this way. Have you consulted them on this aspect of the CCG? I, for one, see this as a very slippery slope which holds the potential of the NHS being run for financial rather than health interests. It is very simple to solve the potential problem now.

Finally, please will you address the point that I have raised twice about the absence of any performance links working on your website. I am sure you wish the public to support your approach to commissioning as one that is yielding positive health outcomes for the people of Aylesbury Vale. At the moment, the public have little idea as to what is being achieved with our money as your website is providing no easy access to performance data.

Thank you, as before, for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely yours

Jon

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Dancing on the glass ceiling

Ten years ago, I was beginning to plan a series of Open Space events with the Metropolitan Police. I led the team from the Office for Public Management to work with Denise Milani, Carole Howlett, Catherine Crawford, Des Stout, Martin Wilson and (now Sir) Bernard Hogan-Howe (among others) on the design and process of the events.

The 4 workshops were held on four corners of London and involved over 800 women. There were one hundred and fifty seven separate discussion groups held over the four events.

You can read all about the events here in this archived entry from the Metropolitan Police Authority. You will see that a number of key points are summarised under various headings including:
To address the macho culture, which consists of a range of norms and behaviours from working long hours to tacit acceptance of sexual harassment and assault, sexist language and behaviour and the use of gender specific language.
So that was ten years ago. The question I have now for women and men from the Met is: have things improved for women working in the Met Police since then? (I really hope so.)

...

Personal note: It is an odd and poignant coincidence that I happened to be thinking of this piece of work today. I dug out the information because I am looking into bidding to do some similar work for another client. The link to that tender arrived to my inbox this afternoon. My colleague and good friend Kate Dixon was part of the OPM project team. Indeed Kate, as "event historian", led on producing the report of the events.

It is with the saddest of ironies (the events were also about the service provided by the Met to London women) that Kate was a victim of domestic violence last year. She was killed by a former boyfriend who appeared in court today to plead guilty to manslaughter. (Time will tell as to whether he is finally convicted of that or murder.)

Kate was simply the most amazing person and touched the lives of many people. Her funeral was attended by the leader of the council, the chief executive, the night security staff and everyone in between. Islington Council (where she was working) have planted a tree in memory of her. She is very sadly missed by her family, partner, friends and colleagues. RIP Kate.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Ultrabole & police conduct

It seems as if yesterday's court case ( Plebgate row: PC Keith Wallis admits misconduct over lies about Andrew Mitchell) has stirred up another whole new level of frothing tweets and debates concerning trust in the police. It seems to me that hyperbole is no longer an adequate word to describe the 'conclusions', claptrap and political point scoring this whole incident (which lasted but a few minutes) has generated. Hence the title of this blog.

In amongst the hoohah there are some wise words being spoken by the likes of Irene Curtis. You can see her interview on Channel 4 last night here. As I think I have said before: this story looks set to run and run, at least for a while yet until the court case between Mr Mitchell and the Police Office concerned happens (I understand they are both suing each other and the two actions will be heard at the same time).

And of course, the news yesterday followed on from the discussions concerning the Mark Duggan inquest verdict where more questions were raised about police trust.

The conduct of police officers remains in the spotlight which is one of the reasons why I embarked upon my research into the development of ethical practice in the police service. (You can see my blogs about this here and, a few days ago, here)

So far I have had 26 replies which have been inside or within a day or two of the Freedom of Information deadline. I wrote to 46 police services. So only just over half have replied on time. And a couple of those who have replied have said that since they cannot answer one of the questions, they need me to resubmit the other 7, which will take another 20 working days. This seems like a rather cunning wheeze to me (what do you think?) that, arguably, sits outside a fair interpretation of the law.

So I will be chasing the remaining 20 police forces next week although I wish I did not have to...

The results so far are interesting in that they highlight, I think, the need for an even greater focus on ethical practice in the police service. But I will be writing more soon.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Deputy Dawg 2

A while back I asked for details of what the Deputy PCC for Thames Valley does with time. (Here is the previous blog posting). You will recall that Cllr David Carroll is employed on a 0.6 contract / 22.2 hours per week and is paid £35,000 a year for this (pro rata full time salary would be £58,333). I asked again before Christmas. Here is what he was doing between the 8 July and 8 November last year. I asked for "a list of all the meetings and events that the Deputy PCC has attended" during that period. This is what emerged.

Date
Meeting/event




8 July -16 July
Leave
Leave / hol / w/e
17-Jul

???
18-Jul

???
19-Jul
Police and Crime Panel Conference
Public governance
20-Jul

Leave / hol / w/e
21-Jul

Leave / hol / w/e
22-Jul

???
23-Jul

???
24-Jul

???
25-Jul

???
26-Jul

???
27-Jul

Leave / hol / w/e
28-Jul

Leave / hol / w/e
29-Jul

???
30-Jul
Meeting in Bucks
Unspecified
31-Jul
Meeting in London
Unspecified
01-Aug
Meeting in Bucks
Unspecified
02-Aug

???
03-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
04-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
05-Aug

???
06-Aug

???
07-Aug
National Playday event
Prof Development
08-Aug
Meeting with Wycombe MP
Partner liaison

Bucks Adult Safeguarding Board Chair and Development Officer
Partner liaison
09-Aug

???
10-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
11-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
12-Aug

???
13-Aug

???
14-Aug
Force’s Integrity Sub Group
Police liaison
15-Aug

???
16-Aug

???
17-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
18-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
19-Aug

???
20-Aug

???
21-Aug
Meeting with Bucks Councillors
Partner liaison
22-Aug

???
23-Aug
Meeting with Community Safety Manager Bucks
Partner liaison
24-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
25-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
26-Aug
Bank Holiday
Leave / hol / w/e
27-Aug

???
28-Aug

???
29-Aug
Bucks County Show
Public engagement 
30-Aug

???
31-Aug

Leave / hol / w/e
01-Sep

Leave / hol / w/e
02-Sep

???
03-Sep

???
04-Sep
Meeting with the Council leader Wycombe
Partner liaison
05-Sep
Local Criminal Justice Board
Partner liaison
06-Sep

???
07-Sep

Leave / hol / w/e
08-Sep

Leave / hol / w/e
09-Sep

???
10-Sep

???
11-Sep

???
12-Sep

???
13-Sep

???
14-Sep

Leave / hol / w/e
15-Sep

Leave / hol / w/e
16-Sep
Have Your Say evening meeting
Public engagement 
17-Sep
Joint Independent Audit Committee meeting
Governance

Meeting with PCC/Senior Officers of the OPCC
Governance
18-Sep

???
19-Sep
Meeting with Area Commander Aylesbury
Police liaison

Meeting with Community Safety Manager Bucks
Partner liaison
20-Sep
Police and Crime Panel
Public governance
21-Sep

Leave / hol / w/e
22-Sep

Leave / hol / w/e
23-Sep
Meeting with Chief Executive OPCC
Governance

Have Your Say evening meeting
Public engagement 
24-Sep
Safer Bucks Board meeting
Partner liaison
25-Sep
Police Integrity Conference
Police liaison
26-Sep

???
27-Sep

???
28-Sep

Leave / hol / w/e
29-Sep
Police Memorial Event
Public engagement 
30-Sep

???
01-Oct

???
02-Oct
Meeting with YOTs Milton Keynes
Partner liaison

Meeting with the DCC and Head of Professional Standards
Governance
03-Oct

???
04-Oct
Meeting with Dominic Grieve MP
Partner liaison
05-Oct

Leave / hol / w/e
06-Oct

Leave / hol / w/e
07-Oct
Meeting with a complainant
Public engagement 
08-Oct
Meeting with John Bercow MP
Partner liaison
09-Oct

???
10-Oct

???
11-Oct
Meeting with David Lidington MP
Partner liaison
12-Oct

Leave / hol / w/e
13-Oct
High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire
Partner liaison
14-Oct
Meeting with a Bucks resident
Public engagement 
15-Oct
Meeting with the DCC and Chief Executive OPCC
Governance
16-Oct

???
17-Oct
Meeting with Fiona MacTaggart MP
Partner liaison
18-Oct
Gmap meeting
Governance
19-Oct

Leave / hol / w/e
20-Oct

Leave / hol / w/e
21-Oct
Meeting with the PCC and Senior   Officers of the OPCC
Governance
22-Oct

???
23-Oct

???
24-Oct
Pension Fund meeting
Governance
25-Oct

???
26-Oct

Leave / hol / w/e
27-Oct

Leave / hol / w/e
28-Oct

???
29-Oct
Meeting with the DCC and Chief Executive OPCC
Governance
30-Oct

???
31-Oct

???
01-Nov

???
02-Nov

Leave / hol / w/e
03-Nov

Leave / hol / w/e
04-Nov

???
05-Nov

???
06-Nov
Level 1 public meeting
Public engagement 
07-Nov
Meeting with Bucks re CSF funding
Partner liaison
08-Nov
Police and Crime Panel
Public governance


The information in the first two columns was provided by the Office for the PCC. I have added the categorisation in the third column.

Now, my arithmetic may be a little wrong, but calculate the following. Mr Carroll had meetings of this kind on these number of days. (I make no assumptions about how long the meetings were)

13 Partner liaison
7.5 Governance
7 Public engagement
3 Unspecified meetings
3 Public governance
2.5 Police liaison
1 Professional development

That is 37 days in total. I calculate there are 84 possible days of working in this period for which the DPCC is committed to police & crime work for 60%. This is roughly equal to 50 days. (I say roughly as it gets a tad complicated when it comes to leave and bank holidays etc.) 

I am left wondering what the Deputy does for a quarter of his time. 

What do you think he could be doing during these moments? 



(I am happy to be corrected / enlightened / challenged on any of this data. I may well have missed something obvious...)