Back to Top

Blogs

Lammy Review MOJ update – the view of the Chair of Equal

Oct 15, 2018

 

NB Equal is the new name for the Young Review

The Ministry of Justice recently launched Tackling Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice system: 2018 Update. The report highlights progress in the Department’s implementation of the Lammy Review over the past year.

Going through the report there is a lot of activity with a clear implementation structure now in place.  I would like to highlight areas that are of particular interest to Equal:

  • Youth Justice – According to the Youth Justice Board Annual Report, the figure for BAME children and young people held in custody is now 45%. One of Lammy’s biggest concerns was that the higher rates of ethnic disproportionality in the youth justice system would be transferred into the adult custodial population.  We welcome the joint work carried out by the MOJ’s Youth Justice Policy Unit and the Youth Justice Board. The former Youth Justice Minister Dr Philip Lee made a commitment to developing a BAME Youth Strategy. Equal would welcome the Department taking this forward.

The Secure Schools programme  is likely to be the most significant new development around youth custody in recent years and that it is not mentioned in the report is worrying. We must ensure Secure Schools have a strong focus on addressing ethnic disparities and improving outcomes for BAME children/young people. To miss this opportunity would not be in the spirit in which the Lammy Review was created.

  • Data - We note the progress made in the area of data collection in implementing the Lammy recommendations. We acknowledge the development of the scorecard for Lammy implementation and would welcome the opportunity to comment on it as it will be a key reference point in the delivery of the implementation process.

  • Gypsy, Roma and Traveller/ Muslim communities - The establishment of a GRT Action Plan developed in collaboration with GRT voluntary groups is to be commended. We would recommend that HMPPS develops a similar response to issues facing Muslim communities in prison and through rehabilitation services. As touched on in the Lammy Review and highlighted in more detail in the Young Review report, the experience of Muslim offenders is too often viewed through the lens of security and radicalisation although less than 1% of Muslims in prison are being held on terror-related offences.  A focus on improving their experience in prison and outcomes would be a positive development.
  • Prevention - The report details work with Police and Crime Commissioners on the prevention agenda. Equal is working with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and would be keen to support this work as part of our developing partnership.

  • Metropolitan Police Service Gangs Matrix - We look forward to the release of the Mayor of London’s review of the Gang’s Matrix. BTEG has been a member of the Community reference group established by the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime to inform this review. Recent research reports from Amnesty International and Stopwatch raise serious questions around the Matrix in relation to its legality, governance, effectiveness and its propensity to perpetuate ethnic disparities. We share these concerns.

  • Trust in the system - The work the MOJ has initiated/supported in North London with Spark2life and Emery Hall Brown solicitors in engaging with and educating young people around the issues of trust in the criminal justice system is positive.  We note the planned ministerial roundtable event on this theme.  Clearly the voice and experience of BAME children is critical. BTEG has previously worked with the Children Rights Alliance around the issues of policing and BAME children and would be happy to input into this process.

  • Prisons - Members of the Advisory group have participated in the HMPPS’ External Advice and Scrutiny Panel (EASP.) This has been a productive development. Processes have been established to implement Lammy’s recommendations in the areas of complaints, the incentives and earned privileges scheme and use of force. It is, however, crucial that we have a clear framework for monitoring their delivery, measuring their impact and some expectation as to when we can see tangible improvements in outcomes for BAME offenders across these indicators.

  • Rehabilitation - Equal, in partnership with the MOJ as part of its Probation Consultation, recently held a joint a joint consultative event and made a written submission  to the consultation. The submission made a number of recommendations that we believe, if adopted, would strengthen the likelihood of the upcoming procurement process for the community rehabilitation contracts to deliver improved outcomes for BAME offenders.

Clearly a lot of progress has been made over the past year and Equal welcomes the commitment of Ministers and the groundwork that officials have established in recent months. My personal commitment as the Chair of Equal is to see tangible improvements in the outcomes and experiences of BAME offenders and communities within the justice system. This is clearly where the focus has to be over the coming two to three years.

One thing I felt was missing from the report was a recognition that the Department could be giving a greater focus on its statutory duties under the Equality Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty, which we firmly believe is a powerful tool to drive reductions in disproportionality and this is precisely what this legislation was designed to ensure.   One of the ways in which this could be beneficial to the process is the use of Equality Impact Assessments and, crucially, giving them greater credence in the policy/procurement development process, and utilising civil society formally in their production.

Within the current politically turbulent environment, making progress on improving outcomes for BAME groups in the CJS will continue to be challenging but I am hopeful and determined that we will make a difference over the coming years.

Iqbal Wahhab OBE
Chair, Equal

The future of probation services - EQUAL’s response

Oct 03, 2018

In 2014/15 the MoJ introduced major changes to the probation services through the Transforming Rehabilitation programme. This initiative outsourced the management of low to medium risk offenders to Company Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s) and implemented one national body (the National Probation Service) to manage high risk offenders.

The new structures experienced major problems from their inception. Many of these were outlined in a recent report by the Justice Select Committee. As a result, the MoJ took the decision to re-tender the contracts with CRC’s (two years before the end of the contract term) and to carry out public consultations to inform the redesign of probation services.

As part of this consultation process, the National Independent Advisory Group held a consultation event focused on how to improve outcomes for BAME offenders and address ethnic disproportionality throughout probation services. The event was attended by 17 people from community organisations that work with BAME communities within the prison/probation system, academics and members of the Advisory Group.

The consultation informed a written submission to the MOJ which featured eight recommendations:

  1. The next commissioning round for CRC contracts should include a specific race equality weighting to reflect the ethnic disproportionality in the caseload and in recognition of the Lammy agenda. This should be at least 10-15%

  2. The contract specifications should include requirements for CRC’s to produce ethnic performance data and to meet the requirements set out in the Lammy Review. This should be of both BAME users and BAME intervention programs.

  3. MOJ should develop specific requirements in the contract that meet their stated objectives of enabling smaller, community and BAME led providers to engage in supply chains on terms that meet their needs

  4. The public sector equality duty (PSED) and its obligations should be given a greater emphasis throughout the contract

  5. The contracts should include a commitment on the part of the supplier to deliver culturally competent service models. MOJ should commission the development of a model of cultural competence for probation providers

  6. The needs of specific ethnic groups such as Gypsy, Traveller and Roma, Somali community etc. must be recognized through the commissioning process

  7. “Through the gate” services need to recognize the huge support of mentoring and this must be reflected in resources for paid mentors.

  8. Prospective providers should be required to outline their plans for community engagement and representation, particularly for through the gate services and how they will ensure these plans are representative of their caseloads

The recommendations we have made, informed by the experience of the participants at our consultation event will, if taken on board, help to ensure the next commissioning round can engage BAME/faith/community providers to participate in the delivery of services and hopefully develop an operating environment that can contribute to some improvement in outcomes for BAME offenders over the duration of the new contracts.

Following the huge shift set in place by the Lammy Review and its implementation framework, it is imperative that MOJ and HMPPS can demonstrate that through procurement and policy development processes they can place addressing ethnic disproportionality and improving race equality outcomes at the heart of how they do business. 

Useful links

The Guardian: Privatisation of probation service has left public at greater risk

Strengthening probation, building confidence: Consultation feedback

HMI ProbationLondon Community Rehabilitation Company - notable improvement from a very low base but much still to do

NIAG: Submission to MOJ consultation

 

From A* - 9? What does this all mean?

Aug 20, 2018
The new GCSE grading system.

As parents, practitioners and students, we seem to be constantly having to get our head around the forever changing education system. The new grading system which saw the traditional A-G grade abolished and the introduction of 9 -1(with 9 been the highest) was introduced in 2017 for Maths and English and rolled out to other subject this year leaving many parents and young people confused!

So what does this mean?

According to the Department for Education (DfE) the new way of teaching and grading GCSEs is ‘more challenging’ and as quoted from the Independent newspaper article August 2017 “The government says it wants to match school standard to those of the strongest performing education systems in the world – such as Hong Kong and Shanghai.”

In essence the new grading system is supposed to allow higher education institutions and employers to really distinguish between the higher performing students and the lower achievers. Grade 9 is not the same as the old A* grade, it’s a new grade designed to recognise the very best performance. OfQual which regulates public examinations in England, have said that in every subject there will be fewer grade 9s awarded than A*s in the old GCSEs. The infographic below shows that there is no direct read across from the old to the new grades

The banding system is still not clear and nor are the implications for future entry in to higher and further education. Students as well as parents will be left making assumptions.

Having spoken to several secondary school teachers, it is clear that they too are still unclear about the new system, as they now have to use different marking bands to grade students. If the teachers have to get their head around it, imagine how the students feel?

Reassurance has been given by Ofqual to have continuity in the proportion of grades awarded stating that the exam boards would use statistics to counteract any dip in results caused by teachers being less familiar with the content and pupils having less support material. According to Ofqual, the new grade 7 will start at the same standard as the former A grade, meaning 9, 8 and 7 grades replace the old A* and A. The 9 is equivalent to the top half of A* awards, while an 8 encompasses the bottom portion of A* and the top part of an A, making comparisons with the old grades difficult.

The new GCSE grading system saw the decrease of those receiving the top grades in 2017. The Times Education Supplement (TES) reported in August 2017 “Results released this morning by exam boards show that the proportion of UK entries getting A*-C or 9-4 has also fallen from 66.9 to 66.3 per cent.” Let’s hope that there is an improvement in this year’s results as the young people become more familiar with the new implementations.

GCSE Grading table

Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Jul 02, 2018

When like-minded people argue, all they do is provide each other with new reasons supporting already held beliefs.  Hugo Mercier & Dan Sperber

The title of this piece was a recurring line of the Borg in Star Trek: the Next Generation. The Borg were an alien entity that assimilated individuals they encountered into a collective hive mind. Those individuals were then no longer independent agents; they acted and thought as part of the collective.

Whilst perhaps not as extreme, is this not dissimilar to the groupthink that pervades society today: in organisations, in news media and on social media?

The term groupthink was popularised by Irving Janis in a 1972 book, Victims of Groupthink, although the term was coined by the writer William H. Whyte Jr in an article in 1952 in Fortune magazine. Janis defines groupthink as:

"a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

What this definition doesn’t include is that the group making decisions is usually made up of like-minded individuals, probably recruited, in part, on the basis of being like-minded. This can give the group a strong identity but does it help them evaluate and address their objectives?

An organisation or project engaging in groupthink suffers from confirmation bias. It will:

  • look for evidence that supports its point of view
  • ignore evidence that undermines its point of view
  • will not consider alternative ideas and opinions or reconsider their assumptions

This can result in decisions and actions that are “more of the same”; lacking innovation, narrowly thought out and concerned with supporting group values rather than solving problems (what Thomas Sowell has called “self-congratulation as a basis for social policy”). However, because the group is convinced of its rightness these decisions and actions are considered to be morally good, justified and acceptable.

How can groupthink be addressed?

We hear a lot these days, rightly, about creating diverse workplaces that reflect the society in which they exist. ACAS says a diverse workforce “opens up a wealth of possibilities and helps to encourage creativity and foster innovation.” Usually this diversity is addressing issues around race, education, social background, gender, age and culture.

What if “thought diversity” was added to this list?

Looking at issues from a point of view that is different from the group consensus, even as a devil’s advocate, can help test the validity, usefulness and effectiveness of proposed activities. At the very least they can provide a reality check. In addition, a different perspective can introduce ideas, perspectives and solutions that would otherwise be side-tracked – or probably not even perceived -by the prevailing groupthink.

As George S. Patton said: If everyone it thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.

Will secure schools improve outcomes for BAME young people serving custodial sentences in the youth justice system?

Jun 12, 2018

The MOJ are consulting on their procurement prospectus for the new model of youth custody that promises to put education at its heart. But will this result in improved outcomes for BAME children and young people?

It’s almost three years since the then Justice Secretary Michael Gove instigated a review into the youth justice system. Charlie Taylor, a respected educationalist, was appointed to chair it and the subsequent Taylor Review was published in December 2016. Mr Taylor is now chair of the Youth Justice Board.

The centrepiece of the Taylor Review was its proposal for a new model of youth custody - Secure Schools. These new institutions would be run by a head teacher and specialist staff teams, with smaller intakes of young people and with the focus on education.

This all sounded incredibly positive, so why should I have my doubts that this new model will deliver improved outcomes for BAME young people, who are heavily over-represented in the youth justice system?

There are a number of issues and precedents which lead me to question the plausibility of this new model delivering for BAME children.

The Taylor Review itself identified the issue of the over-representation of BAME and looked after children in the youth justice system. However, it failed to explore the reasons behind this disproportionality.

In the draft prospectus BAME groups and Looked after Children are both identified as groups disproportionality over-represented in the youth justice system. This is a step in the right direction but the prospectus should go further.

Why aren’t bidders being asked about their experience in working with BAME and looked after children and for evidence that they can improve the outcomes experienced by these groups? Assessing their track records in working with these groups would appear to be an obvious aspect of their credentials to interrogate.  

Many of the potential bidders are likely to come from Academy Trusts. However, there is continuing concern about higher rates of exclusions from Academy schools for SEN and BAME children, some of the very groups who need to see the greatest improvement in outcomes within the youth justice system. We believe the prospectus should be looking to promote a greater breadth of non-profit making bidders.

If specific engagement with children and young people directly affected and experiencing custody cannot be part of the pre-procurement process then surely engaging with civil society organisations who work with these groups should be. For a number of years the YJB has failed to proactively engage with civil society around the deteriorating outcomes for BAME children and young people compared with those for white young people children.  This stark disproportionality was at the heart of David Lammy’s observation that youth justice was his biggest concern.

Informing policy through engagement and dialogue is at the heart of the work BTEG has been involved with through the Young Review; supporting both the Lammy Review and partnerships across civil society in highlighting and engaging with government around ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system.

There is now a major concern in society around increased violent crime involving young people. At the same time violence and outcomes within the youth estate have deteriorated over the past years. This led to HM Prison’s Inspector stating last year that all of our youth prisons were unfit for purpose. With the over-representation of BAME groups in the system as both perpetrators and victims and the rise in violent incidents within custody and in the community now, is it time to give real thought to the experience of BAME children and young people in the youth justice system? Could there be a link between a system that clearly treats them more harshly, punitively and delivers poorer rehabilitative outcomes and the increase in violence?

We need greater engagement from the YJB and all public bodies working with vulnerable and marginalised children and young people with civil society. This must be about putting the voice of the user, and engagement with communities, at the heart of policy development not just as a tokenistic gesture.

Secure Schools are an opportunity but a traditional procurement development approach is, in our opinion, unlikely to reap the results for BAME young people and children that are so desperately needed.   

Photo credit: cphoffman42 on Visualhunt / CC BY-SA

The month of giving

Jun 05, 2018

We are half way through the month of Ramadan - the holy month when over one billion Muslims around the world fast and focus their attention on giving to charity, known as Zakat. 

During Ramadan, both fasting and acts of charity are obligatory for all Muslims who are able to do so. Fasting (no food or water) from sunrise to sunset represents a spiritual cleansing; an effort to become closer to God and an attempt to gain a better understanding of human suffering. The daily routine during this month helps me focus on the principles of generosity, discipline, honesty, selflessness, tolerance and sacrifice. It also helps me reflect upon, and show compassion for, the less fortunate. 

Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam and, as a result, during Ramadan there is much charitable giving by the community. It is estimated by the Muslim Charities Forum that British Muslims gave approximately £100 million to charitable causes during the month of Ramadan in 2016 – almost £38 a second! Donations are usually focused on giving to those suffering from poverty and hunger and much is distributed to international causes. I don’t recall seeing much in the media about this positive side of Islam.

I like to advocate on behalf of the UK-based causes. How many of us consider donating during Ramadan to our local causes –homelessness, mental health, employability projects, work with offenders/ex-offenders or mentoring programmes? This year I have decided to allocate my donation as a 50/50 split between international causes and a local cause.  

For those of us working in the charity sector perhaps it’s time we started making the ask for donations to Muslims during the month of Ramadan.

Matrix or made up? Does the Gangs Matrix have a purpose?

May 21, 2018

Race equality, or the lack of it, is high on the news agenda at present:

  • the controversy around ‘The Windrush Generation’;

  • the anniversary of  Stephen Lawrence’s murder and the documentary that highlighted the huge part institutionalised racism had to play in the failures of the case and;

  • the recent visit by the UN special rapporteur on racism and related intolerance

Adding fuel to the fire are the revelations of the ‘new’ gang matrix used by the Metropolitan Police!

What is the “gang matrix”? Well, this is not the first time I’ve heard about it!

In 2014 I was working with a young man who had been trying to turn his life around. As a teenager, after witnessing his best friend stabbed to death, he turned to a life on the streets and had been in trouble with the police. In his early 20s he became a father and decided that he wanted to be a positive role model for his children. He left life on the streets and turned to organisations like BTEG who support young people into employment or entrepreneurship.

When we met, as we were discussing his social enterprise ideas, he said was finding it difficult to move forward as he was on the gang matrix and was always being targeted by the police. The matrix, he explained, identified people who were associated with ‘gang members’. He said that though he knew of people who were in gangs they were not his friends, just people he said hello to if he saw them on the streets. This was enough for him to be added to the gang matrix. I was horrified at the thought of young people being added to this “guilty by association” list.

This year the gang matrix has been made more public. I find myself questioning its credibility and purpose. Listening to Vanessa Feltz on BBC London radio, I heard an officer of the Metropolitan Police say that this ‘new’ gang matrix was designed to protect those at risk and prevent young people turning to violence and criminal activity. If this is the case, they failed the young man I was talking about earlier. He was on the gang matrix. He was sadly murdered on the streets of London in 2015.

How exactly are these young people identified?

This is a huge concern, especially as we know institutionalised racism still exists in the Metropolitan Police, even after the Macpherson Report. According to BBC news, a report by Amnesty International found the Met's Gang Violence Matrix was “racially discriminatory and breaches human rights law”. Figures from July 2016 showed that 87% of the people listed were black, Asian and minority ethnic, and 78% were black according to the Amnesty report. This is absolutely shocking!

Does this leave us with much faith in the matrix?

I think not.

At a time when knife and gun crime is rife in the capital shouldn’t the Metropolitan Police be more focused on the right tools to tackle the issues rather than a matrix made up of people they believe are ‘at risk’? Amnesty’s UK Director Kate Allen said: ‘There is clearly a huge problem with knife crime violence at the moment in London, but the Gangs Matrix is not the answer. It’s part of an unhelpful and racialised focus on the concept of gangs. Put simply, it’s the wrong tool for the wrong problem.’

Surely at a time when young black men are losing faith and trust in the police, the Met should be working with these young men, repairing the damage that has been done and letting them know that institutionalised racism is being tackled!

So:

  • Does the matrix have a purpose?

  • Is it really going to be used to tackle knife and gun crime?

  • Or is it simply another tool used to racially profile young black men?

It appears to me that it is the latter!

Photo: Yukiko Matsuoka via Flickr

The UN, the UK and racism

May 14, 2018

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,  E. Tendayi Achiume, was recently in the UK, at the invitation of the Government, to meet with stakeholders across the nation.

She was here to:

  • examine manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and related trends in the UK;

  • assess the existing legal, institutional and policy framework for the protection of groups and individuals that may be subjected to racial discrimination and related intolerance;

  • follow up on recommendations made to the UK by various human rights groups;

  • seek information on existing good practices for combatting racial discrimination, and the challenges to their implementation;

  • gather information on achievements that have advanced racial equality;

  • document remaining gaps and challenges with a view to making concrete recommendations to the Government and other relevant stakeholders.

This fact finding mission included two sessions that BTEG staff attended. They covered:

  • the intersectionality between racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender and/or sexual orientation and

  • policing and the administration of justice.

The events gave us the opportunity to promote BTEG’s work, especially around criminal justice, education and employment. More importantly, we were able to express our frustrations around continuing racism, race disparities and discrimination that exist despite decades of UK legislation and initiatives. Questions around racism have arisen over the last year. Grenfell Tower, Brexit and the Windrush scandal have all led to public debate around race. Some may say that this is a good thing and that “at least we are talking about race and racism again”. This perception can be appreciated as it is true to say that racism was taken off the agendas of public sector bodies for many years,  allowing systematic and institutionalised traits to seep in and reinforce discrimination and disparities.

A complementary workshop was hosted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The event was for civil society organisation to consider how their work is relevant to the examination of the UK Government under the Convention against Torture that is expected to take place in spring 2019.  A UN committee will visit Britain to hear evidence from the British government and UK civil society organisations. Torture is most commonly associated with criminal justice and military settings but the scope of the committees review will include social care, mental health and asylum detention settings.

The committee’s visit will be an opportunity for BTEG to raise:

  • the consistent over-representation of BAME groups – including women and young people -and their poor treatment across the criminal justice system

  • the treatment of black, Muslim and ethnic minority prisoners, including the use of force and the likelihood of  harsher prison regimes

  • the police’s use of force and the treatment of BAME children.

BTEG will contribute to a report from civil society organisations on these issues to the UN committee.

Amnesty Report - enforcement-led response to youth crime criminalises delinquent behaviour

May 09, 2018

The Metropolitan Police’s Gangs Matrix is a database of individuals involved in gang activity, so-called gang nominals, across the capital. Trapped in the Matrix, a new report from Amnesty International, is a comprehensive review of the Gangs Matrix. It highlights a policing tool that appears to be both ineffective and discriminatory and covers a range of concerns including:

  • Racial profiling
  • Lack of consistent policy and practice regarding data sharing across local multi-agency partnerships
  • Risk assessment processes which conflate elements of urban youth culture and link them to gang association
  • The potential for innocent people to be criminalised with no clear framework to find out why they are on the matrix or how to get their name removed

Some of the data in the report illustrates the inequities built into the system:

  • 72% of those flagged for gang-related violence are black while 27% of recorded serious youth violence incidents are recorded as committed by black young men
  • 78% of people on the matrix are black
  • 80% are 12-24 year olds
  • 35% have never committed a serious offence
  • 75% have been victims of violence themselves

The matrix was conceived prior to the riots of August 2011 but was then accelerated by the Met and London Mayor Boris Johnson. Understanding the context and the policy and political drivers after 2011 can give us a better understanding of some of the causes to the current increases in violent crime and what we need to do in response to address those causes.

Previous crises, such as the riots of the 1980’s and the deaths of Stephen Lawrence and Zahid Mubarek, saw quite liberal responses, with independent judge-led enquiries that recommended placing an emphasis on engagement, inclusion and prevention. The response in 2011 was far more punitive. The `war on gangs’, as the then Mayor of London framed it, was at the heart of this, and black and minority ethnic young people have subsequently had worsening outcomes throughout the justice system.

The response was, and still is, enforcement-led. The recent media debate around youth violence has generated a lot of comment from political and police leaders suggesting the need for prevention, working with communities and public health approaches. The reality is that tough enforcement is still the primary vehicle in addressing youth crime.

Within this context understanding the experience of BAME children and particularly black young men is crucial. Their experience of the justice system has deteriorated since 2011. The Children’s Rights Alliance England, through Freedom of Information requests, obtained the following statistics with regards to children and the Met Police:

  • Stop and search – although its use has fallen overall, the tactic is used disproportionately on BAME children in London. Over half (54%) of all stop and searches in 2016 were BAME children (with the disparity starkest in relation to black boys and young men who accounted for 37% of all stops and searches)
  • In 2016 at least 540 children in London were subjected to `more thorough’ or `strip searches’. BAME children accounted for 71% of these intrusive searches
  • In 2016, 8275 children were detained overnight in Met custody. Nearly two thirds of these children were from BAME backgrounds (with black children accounting for 41% of the total).
  • When Tasers were introduced in 2008, Met officers used them 9 times on children. Yet in the first 9 months of 2016 Tasers were used 118 times (including being fired five times.) Nearly 70% of these uses in 2016 were on BAME children

There is no clear evidence for the current rise in violence and homicides in London but at BTEG we would contend that with around 60% of perpetrators and victims being black that their negative experience of the justice system and the adversarial relationship they have with the police, and the state generally, is a contributing factor. A public health approach to violence prevention has been bandied about by politicians and senior police officers but, with a majority of victims and perpetrators coming from black communities, little is mentioned in effectively targeting this group with regards to prevention and early intervention. Instead the onus is on more enforcement which will, in our opinion, be ineffective and further erode police/community relations.

If we are to address the root causes of violent crime we have to put prevention, community engagement/involvement and early intervention at the forefront of our thinking and action, and stop the criminalisation of children and young people. Adopting the recommendations of this report from Amnesty International to halt the gang’s matrix would be a good place for the Mayor of London to start.

Jeremy Crook seconded to HMPPS

Mar 28, 2018

Jeremy Crook, Chief Executive of BTEG, will be seconded to HM Prison & Probation Service for three days a week from 1st May 2018.  His role will be Race - External Liaison & Learning Lead. This post has been created as part of HMPPS’s response to the conclusions and recommendations in the David Lammy review of race and the criminal justice system.

Jeremy has led BTEG for 26 years and welcomes the opportunity to have a new challenge. This is his second secondment to the Civil Service and the learning from the first secondment was very useful for him, BTEG and BTEG’s network.

The BTEG Board have created a new role for the period of Jeremy’s secondment - Deputy Chief Executive (DCE). This post will be filled by Tebussum Rashid, currently BTEG’s Head of Volunteering and Innovation. Tebs has been a big part of BTEG’s success to date and the Board is confident she will drive the Group and help shape its future.

Jeremy will remain the Chief Executive, employed by BTEG and be responsible for the overall delivery of BTEG’s mission.

Pages

Subscribe to Blogs

Latest

  NB Equal is the new name for the Young Review The Ministry of Justice recently lau...
Monday, October 15, 2018 - 13:21
Lammy Review cover
It’s now been a year since the launch of the Government’s Race Disparity Audit. The M...
Thursday, October 11, 2018 - 15:30
In 2014/15 the MoJ introduced major changes to the probation services through the Tra...
Wednesday, October 3, 2018 - 15:29
As parents, practitioners and students, we seem to be constantly having to get our he...
Monday, August 20, 2018 - 14:35

Follow us on social media