The above was said to me by someone I have the highest regard for, strangely enough just two days after the longest Inquest in British legal history had finally delivered justice for the families of the Hillsborough 96 after 27 years of tireless campaigning. I seem to recall they were advised to 'move on' as well.
The juxtaposition really struck me and if 'moving on' means giving up the campaign of exposing TR for what it is, namely a shameless, ideologically-driven, evidence-free, fag packet-designed destruction of a world-class public service, then I simply can't - it would feel as if the job I loved, the career I cared so much about, the amazingly good and worthwhile work we all did for the benefit of society, and most importantly to help countless profoundly damaged and disadvantaged people, had all been for nothing. It would mean having to deny that there was any worth in what we had been doing for so long and I know that's simply not true. I also know that an utter omnishambles has been created and someone has a duty to carry on speaking up about it.
As the recent NAO report confirmed, however you decide to try and spin things, there is absolutely no evidence to show that TR has been anything but a complete disaster, just as widely predicted by any and everyone who knows about the subject. The whole sorry tale is here on the blog for anyone who wants to see and it's not as if 'things have settled down, bedded in or improving'. No matter how much certain people may hope or wish for something different, all the indications are that the situation is getting worse and we're not even at CRC end-state operating models yet and NPS is about to be turned upside down by E3.
It's widely accepted that we are in the midst of a prison crisis, a situation made considerably worse by some crass decisions made by the previous Justice Minister Chris Grayling, but subsequently reversed by his more cerebral successor Michael Gove. In fact Gove has reversed virtually all of his predecessor's key decisions bar one, that of the destruction of the award-winning probation service with TR. It always was a barking-mad idea to think that monetising the supervision of offenders was ethical, let alone that it would work, but such is our public profile that it even took Andreas Whittam Smith until this week to catch up with the lunacy of it all in the Independent.
Since David Cameron's ground-breaking speech on the obvious need for urgent prison reform and focus on rehabilitation, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the Agency with highly trained staff and admired world-wide as having the knowledge and experience in this field, would be centre-stage in any plans for change, but you'd be completely wrong. Since TR was inflicted upon us, there has been a consistent policy of air-brushing the word probation completely out of the criminal justice lexicon. A classic example is that of Michael Gove's recent speech to senior prison governor's in which he confirmed that greater autonomy would be given to them, but only a few at first because obviously we need to see if it works. Clearly a lesson learnt from not conducting trials for TR.
In this major speech, Gove highlighted the urgent need to deal with the scandalous issue of IPP prisoners, most of whom are way over tariff dates, but completely unable to gain release because of problems in being afforded opportunities of demonstrating reduced risk. He also spoke of the need for increased ROTL and discretion in relation to early release, all matters that to you or I might be deemed to fall firmly within the remit of experienced probation staff to assist with, but probation didn't warrant a mention at all. We are being erased completely from the picture, North Korean-style.
There is a wide consensus that prison reform can only have a chance of working if the numbers incarcerated are reduced. Former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Lord Ramsbotham is just the latest of a long line of CJS commentators to make this point, as here on the BBC website:-
Prison numbers 'must fall' for reforms to work says Ramsbotham
As the recent NAO report confirmed, however you decide to try and spin things, there is absolutely no evidence to show that TR has been anything but a complete disaster, just as widely predicted by any and everyone who knows about the subject. The whole sorry tale is here on the blog for anyone who wants to see and it's not as if 'things have settled down, bedded in or improving'. No matter how much certain people may hope or wish for something different, all the indications are that the situation is getting worse and we're not even at CRC end-state operating models yet and NPS is about to be turned upside down by E3.
It's widely accepted that we are in the midst of a prison crisis, a situation made considerably worse by some crass decisions made by the previous Justice Minister Chris Grayling, but subsequently reversed by his more cerebral successor Michael Gove. In fact Gove has reversed virtually all of his predecessor's key decisions bar one, that of the destruction of the award-winning probation service with TR. It always was a barking-mad idea to think that monetising the supervision of offenders was ethical, let alone that it would work, but such is our public profile that it even took Andreas Whittam Smith until this week to catch up with the lunacy of it all in the Independent.
Since David Cameron's ground-breaking speech on the obvious need for urgent prison reform and focus on rehabilitation, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the Agency with highly trained staff and admired world-wide as having the knowledge and experience in this field, would be centre-stage in any plans for change, but you'd be completely wrong. Since TR was inflicted upon us, there has been a consistent policy of air-brushing the word probation completely out of the criminal justice lexicon. A classic example is that of Michael Gove's recent speech to senior prison governor's in which he confirmed that greater autonomy would be given to them, but only a few at first because obviously we need to see if it works. Clearly a lesson learnt from not conducting trials for TR.
In this major speech, Gove highlighted the urgent need to deal with the scandalous issue of IPP prisoners, most of whom are way over tariff dates, but completely unable to gain release because of problems in being afforded opportunities of demonstrating reduced risk. He also spoke of the need for increased ROTL and discretion in relation to early release, all matters that to you or I might be deemed to fall firmly within the remit of experienced probation staff to assist with, but probation didn't warrant a mention at all. We are being erased completely from the picture, North Korean-style.
There is a wide consensus that prison reform can only have a chance of working if the numbers incarcerated are reduced. Former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Lord Ramsbotham is just the latest of a long line of CJS commentators to make this point, as here on the BBC website:-
Prison numbers 'must fall' for reforms to work says Ramsbotham
Justice Secretary Michael Gove has said he will not artificially "manage down" the prison population. And the Conservative former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said reforms would not fully succeed until the prison population was reduced. Plans for prisons are expected to feature in the Queen's Speech next week, setting out the government's planned legislation for the year ahead.
Asked whether prisoners needed to be released before any of Justice Secretary Michael Gove's reforms were put in place, Lord Ramsbotham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Absolutely. He can't possibly do it with the numbers as they are now."
Indeterminate sentences
The cross-bench peer said some prisoners on indeterminate sentences for public protection and those who are mentally ill should be let out, adding that he estimated 30% of inmates did not need to be in prison. He said he supported the aims of the government's planned reforms, first spelt out by the prime minister earlier this year.
Ken Clarke, justice secretary between 2010 and 2012, said: "The reforms will not fully succeed until you reduce the prison population. You can do things if you have more sensible sentencing for people who aren't hardened criminals." And Mr Neill said he strongly supported the government's reform proposals but added: "I think we should be looking to start reducing the prison population straight away."
--oo00oo--
Of course the other way to reduce the number of people in prison is to send less in the first place and again you'd be forgiven for thinking that probation might have a key role to play here? Rob Allen has been talking about these issues:-
Of course the other way to reduce the number of people in prison is to send less in the first place and again you'd be forgiven for thinking that probation might have a key role to play here? Rob Allen has been talking about these issues:-
Sentencing Remarks
A fortnight ago, Prisons Minister Andrew Selous told the Justice Committee that "work on sentencing is ongoing this year, in terms of a consultation to which the Ministry of Justice has committed". Yesterday, in the course of answering an urgent question on violence in prison, Selous told the House of Commons that the Government "are currently consulting on sentencing issues".
But there seems to be nothing in the way of a formal consultation underway, at least in terms of an exercise that meets the principles on consultation that the Government launched in January.
There is a working group on problem solving courts involving the Lord Chief Justice and others, one of whose aims is “to encourage innovation in the use of judicial disposals and improve compliance with the orders of the court". Charlie Taylor’s review is also now looking at sentencing in the youth court- something the Sentencing Council, somewhat perversely, is also about to consult upon.
But unless I have missed something there is nothing along the lines of John Halliday's review of sentencing that took place in the early 2000’s. Selous’s colleague Dominic Raab is apparently holding a series of expert roundtables to look at the subject but to what end is not clear. He personally seems to favour a harsher approach but in view of the pressure on prisons and the MoJ budget, the scope for locking up more people for longer is as unaffordable as it is undesirable.
Assuming that ministers may be open to reforms that moderate our comparatively severe sanctioning response to crimes, what could they consider? I have argued that punishment levels should be reduced for women, young adults and people with mental health problems, as well as the oldest offenders. I also suggested that the Sentencing Council be asked to scale down sentencing levels for crimes across the board. But what other more specific measures could be put on the table? Here are five.
1. Scrap the plan to widen the scope for Attorney General References, the mechanism by which "unduly lenient" sentences can be increased. Numbers may be small but their effect is greater, pushing up the going rate for particular offences. It’s true that the Conservative manifesto contained a proposal to enable a wider range of sentences to be challenged “to tackle those cases where judges get it wrong” but it’s surely no longer a priority.
2. Introduce the possibility of releasing non-violent offenders from prison after serving one third point of their sentence with the period up to the half way converted to community payback. This would ease pressure on the prisons while putting more work the way of Community Rehabilitation Companies whose expected volumes of work have not materialised.
3. Enable prisoners to earn earlier release through consistent engagement with education, treatment or work in prison. Justice Secretary Michael Gove is much taken with the Colchester Military Corrective Training Centre where the Commanding Officer has a great deal of discretion over release.
4. Pilot a scheme for prisoners with drug dependency problems to serve the final portion of the custodial part of their sentence in a residential rehabilitation centre.
5. Introduce a presumption of suspending sentences of less than 12 months – a proposal made by Nicky Padfield in the latest version of the Criminal Law Review.
Alongside these sentencing changes, moving forward with the agenda of devolving budgets to a more regional or local level could also introduce a positive new dynamic into the criminal justice process. If Sadiq Khan had to meet the costs of short prison sentences served by Londoners from his budget, he might well look hard to develop more in the way of measures which could reduce the need for their imposition.
2. Introduce the possibility of releasing non-violent offenders from prison after serving one third point of their sentence with the period up to the half way converted to community payback. This would ease pressure on the prisons while putting more work the way of Community Rehabilitation Companies whose expected volumes of work have not materialised.
3. Enable prisoners to earn earlier release through consistent engagement with education, treatment or work in prison. Justice Secretary Michael Gove is much taken with the Colchester Military Corrective Training Centre where the Commanding Officer has a great deal of discretion over release.
4. Pilot a scheme for prisoners with drug dependency problems to serve the final portion of the custodial part of their sentence in a residential rehabilitation centre.
5. Introduce a presumption of suspending sentences of less than 12 months – a proposal made by Nicky Padfield in the latest version of the Criminal Law Review.
Alongside these sentencing changes, moving forward with the agenda of devolving budgets to a more regional or local level could also introduce a positive new dynamic into the criminal justice process. If Sadiq Khan had to meet the costs of short prison sentences served by Londoners from his budget, he might well look hard to develop more in the way of measures which could reduce the need for their imposition.
Rob Allen
--oo00oo--
So, one would feel there's quite a bit to get involved with here. Surely to the casual observer it's fairly obvious that probation could be playing a key role in all this, but I have to say I'm pretty dismayed at the way a once proud, world class profession has been reduced to:-
"putting more work the way of Community Rehabilitation Companies whose expected volumes of work have not materialised."and for this reason, I don't intend to 'move on' just yet.
It's a shame that so many are dictating the work of probation but nobody wants to mention "probation". It's as if mentioning the "P" word has been banned in political camps to enable them to forget what they've done to it.
ReplyDeleteWe all know Grayling destroyed a world class probation service and that Gove cannot keep ignoring this. CRC's have failed and the NPS is about to take a nose dive because E3 is already being implemented.
A smart justice secretary would make the probation service centre stage in rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. "End to end offender management" was the tag line that worked until TR. Let's get back to that, abolish CRC's and private ownership, stop handing out work to non-professional individuals and organisations, and seat probation training firmly back within social work.
Let's see if Sadiq Khan continues to support probation and oppose TR now he's London Mayor. A public word is needed from Mr Mayor supporting a return to what probation once was to reduce prison and crime rates. Even if he just cites Early Day Motion 622.
Where we were before TR hit! We may get on with it, but how could any of us move on knowing this!
ReplyDeleteEarly Day Motion 622
PROBATION SERVICES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
Session: 2012-13
Date tabled: 23.10.2012
Primary sponsor: McDonnell, John
Sponsors: Anderson, David Lavery, Ian Llwyd, Elfyn Meale, Alan Wood, Mike Roy
"That this House welcomes the news that the Probation Service in England and Wales won the British Quality Foundation Gold Medal for Excellence in 2011; notes that no Probation Trust is deemed to be failing or in need of improvement; further notes that each Probation Trust in England and Wales is meeting its target on the production of court reports, victim satisfaction and the successful completion of orders or licences; and acknowledges the achievements of the Probation Service in England and Wales for carrying out its work efficiently and effectively."
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/622
Chaos, chaos, chaos everywhere. Cumbersome IT for insane tasks, a constant flood of emails with queries - we never had this ridiculous volume of queries before TR because everything was joined up. A criminal waste of taxpayers money.
ReplyDeleteBring on the chaos, let it crash. The sooner it does the sooner we can be allowed to rebuild
ReplyDeleteWhere I stood in 2013:
ReplyDelete‘To most it would seem reckless to break up that which is performing so well and on scant evidence that the outcomes of such changes can reap something more fruitful than that which it is replacing.’
And in reply:
‘… every part of the Criminal Justice System is under pressure to deliver better services, at less cost. Funding the supervision of offenders makes up a sizeable proportion of the Department’s budget, and we, like every other part of the system, are faced with the challenge of trying to do better for less. We can either impose further cuts on the structures we have, risking increases in re – offending and leaving short sentence offenders without support after release. Or we can reform the system so that it provides more effective rehabilitation at a better value to the taxpayer.’
‘We want to roll the reforms out in a measured, orderly way to ensure public safety is in no way impacted, but it is imperative we move ahead now to reduce reoffending. We are taking a phased approach to implementation which will enable us to make sure the system works.’
Where I stand now:
TR has created a dysfunctional mess and well thought out solutions need to be found. It seems clear to me that the fragmentation of Probation Services that created the present situation will not resolve itself any time soon, I imagine the next decade might bring about something that is joined up and coherent. In the meantime significant remedial solutions need to be found.
And in reply:
?????????
Moving on from Hillsborough to Orgreave is the type of progressive moving on that appeals to me. However, if you don't like the status quo, how can you possibly move on without some kind of betrayal. The advice to 'move on' is often given by those who are not really troubled or personally affected. It's easy to move on if you don't feel the loss or carry a grievance about the sheer unfairness of a set of arrangements. They would see a way forward as joining the probation institute, to engage in collective forgetting, stressing the importance of working constructively with new partners.
ReplyDeleteBut if you don't like the TR revolution, you cannot move on – you have to become part of the counter revolution. This is not about choosing one brand of television over another – it's fundamentally what is best for the public good. The Howard League will no doubt move on when the job of penal reform has been accomplished. How could this blog possibly discuss the world of probation without being scathing about the TR experiment, without highlighting its inherent dangers and without rejecting the corrupting profit motive in criminal justice.
It seems to me that the advice to 'move on' with respect to TR is a category error – in that it's advice that may be good for coming to terms with the end of a relationship or those mourning a personal loss – but it's not good advice for a political construct like TR or some other unjust situation. As the trade unionist Joe Hill advised his comrades before facing a firing squad: 'Don't mourn – organise!' We can all move on when TR moves on.
NPS higher volume of cases than expected, CRC lower volume than expect. The NAO think this is due to lower levels of cases going through the CJS and a change in the mix of offenders leading to 21% going to NPS rather than assumptions of 13%. They're missing the point. They simply didn't understand what MAPPA means and that most people managed at MAPPA Level 1 are Medium risk. They keep insisting that NPS work with High and Very High risk of harm, they do - but they also work with Low and Medium. The peculiarity of allocating all Foreign National Prisoners eligible for deportation to NPS whatever the level of risk, also adds to the distortion of the numbers.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I think they totally misunderstood the numbers of under 12 month sentenced prisoners and didn't realise that these are largely the same small group people over and over again. There hasn't been a change in anything. The MOJ simply counted wrongly in the first place.
It's a good thing less cases went to CRC's. Less cases for them to do nothing with and fudge the 'success' figures. If the CRC's had more sexual and violent offenders we'd be seeing a lot more problems and headlines.
DeleteMOJ also wildly overestimated the volume of accredited programme requirements CRCs would be delivering. Ludicrous predictions which CRC staff are now paying the price for through redundancies because funding gets slashed as a result of MOJ getting it wrong in the first place. Disgraceful
ReplyDeleteCRC's have no staff left to deliver programmes. When programmes do run there are dodgy practices to meet the pay targets rather than to rehabilitate offenders in attendance. And don't expect a programme review, progress report or anything else. If you want examples just look at the operations of London CRC's programmes unit RISE.
DeleteWhat's up with RISE? I thought they'd be alright.
DeleteHeard an episode of Reunion on Radio 4 a while back, where a number of people involved in the miners strike were brought together, one of them a NUM female employee at the Coal Board. when the strike was discontinued she was given the weekend to decide if she wanted her job. She chose not to return, had been deeply affected by this but was sure that to do have done so would have been to deny all that had gone before. So Jim, thanks for saying you won't move on. I'm not moving on either, ever probably.
ReplyDeleteDeb
I am not moving on either .. I will continue to fight, campaign and rally for as long as it takes, even after I retire, whenever that will be now !!!
ReplyDeleteAccept the agenda of TR and the decimation of Probation but i am fed up hearing about the now historical world class public service. Relatively speaking situation much worse now than then but deluding yourself about the past. I have never worked for a world class public service.
ReplyDeleteI agree 12.55: I am tired of hearing of the fabled world-class public service. There were many things amiss in probation before TR, despite all the investor in people awards and other gongs. Being a public service is no assurance of quality, decency or accountability, as is evident in considering, say, South Yorkshire police, the BBC and Saville, or political complicity in extraordinary rendition and torture. If being in the public sector was synonymous with quality then the Soviet model would have triumphed. It is always imperative to hold all public bodies to democratic account and to put the human rights of individuals above those of state institutions – to ensure that they are serving the public and not acting as self-serving manipulators. And similar fault lines can also be found in trade unions who in addition to making gains for working people also have a sorry history of being factional, racist and sexist.
DeleteBut with all these caveats, I still want some social functions to be undertaken by the public sector rather than private enterprises – because the profit motive only adds to the problems.
But with all its faults probation then was 100x better than probation is now. We used to put emphasis of helping and rehabilitating, and being innovative in doing so. Our practices based on theory and models that were credible. Under the former Probation 'Areas' and Trusts' I despised the money wasting, the old school boys club management teams, the probation Chiefs/CEO dictators, and the sucking up to the MoJ. But, and it's a very big but, at least we didn't have all TR entails. Probation being split in two has been detrimental, one half sold to dodgy private companies who have hived off staff and practices, the other half nationalised and morphed into a civil service cost cutting project. Evidence based training and practices used to be important up until TR, but now it's just about cost-cutting and streamlining.
DeleteIt terms of probation practices there was a time when we were world class. We'll never win an award for that thanks to TR which is turning us into one of the worst a probation services in the world. The bad press for probation over the past 2 years is unprecedented, and it's getting worse. Interestingly the MoJ TR Implementation team are now the ones winning the awards! I suppose it won't be long until Grayling becomes a Lord too.
DeleteYou lot have clearly never met my probation officer/OM who is and always has been far far away from providing any kind of service let alone a world class one. To say she's an incompetent idiot is being extremely polite. And from what I've seen there have been more like her than the world class/gold standard many claim to represent
DeleteActually we probably have. I took severance from the CRC and have been a jobbbing agency worker since. I've picked up some caseloads with incredibly poor practice, usually by people with an exit plan who have stopped caring. You're also more likely these days to be supervised by a young woman with little experience of life. I'm sorry that this is happening to you. You deserve better.
DeleteCan we have a little less of the ageist misogyny please?
Delete(from a male PO approaching middle age, just in case you were wondering).
Nothing ageist or misogynist meant or implied. Just true. We've got some wonderful new people coming into our service.But... We haven't got enough men, we can't recruit people with life experience and we're losing our best assets.
DeleteThe problem is poor pay and conditions. New PQF staff tend to be younger uni leavers and the smart ones move on very quickly to better careers. A lot of deadwood is still waiting for retirement, you know the ones that were too rigid, vocal or unambitious to make management or progress elsewhere. The inbetweeners, you know the middle-aged 30-45 year old '10+ years in category, are propping up probation teams but they'll be gone too after the first sniff of a decent redundancy package. By then, I estimate before the next election, probation will have gone to the dogs and the mess that'll be left will be staffed by college leavers and referrals from local jobcentres.
Delete20.24 comments are very sad I often feel incompetent since TR but at the very least I can be a caring human being and make every effort to have a good relationship with my clients who mostly appreciate this
Delete"at the very least I can be a caring human being and make every effort to have a good relationship with my clients who mostly appreciate this"
DeleteAnd unfortunately this quality does not feature in the current probation PQF/PQiP qualification, training and development, or in the CRC/NPS target driven payment by results ethos and tick box practices.
In fact the mantra nowadays is "volunteers and mentors can do what probation officers are too busy to do". This is why we now have volunteers with little experience of employment and ex-offenders with little experience of mainstream progression running around in agencies trying to fill our boots. Nothing worse than a mentor thinking he knows it all because he did a few years in prison, or a volunteer thinking the same because he just completed and NVQ in social care. It seems that the CRC want to take it to a new low by having hardly any workers at all, paid or volunteers, while the NPS is happy to recruit as a PSO anyone stupid enough to apply.
In my Twitter world at Iangould 5 I'm not 'moving on either ' and will continue do everything I can to ensure that this light on TR continues to shine into the dark recesses of TR as long as I am able. My thoughts and prayers are daily with ALL those that would not have chosen this way. Further, I'm PROUD to have worked for Probation and deeply concerned about the reputational damage it is now experiencing caused by this Government .
ReplyDeleteI'm all for taking away the right to pass prison sentences at Magistrates Courts- if they are serious, the need to go to the higher court!
ReplyDeleteUnpaid work! In my area it's difficult to get people, especially those in work onto a project, why, no late night group in functions, no Sat/Sun placements available- these are also the people over looked for EM, as they often work odd shifts, have childcare duties and don't fit into the 7pm-7am criteria and anything bespoke is too difficult to attend to!
Meanwhile oral hearings becoming a joke, with board members asking for interventions that either don't exist or the client doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion! How do they demonstrate a reduction in risk
Inductions-sorry!
ReplyDeleteHave to say I am leery of governors getting too much autonomy having seen corrupt governors by the bucketload in the system and also those who play favourites where if you suck up you get goodies and if you don't you don't irrespective of whether or not said person deserves the goodies through good behaviour or bad
ReplyDeletemy CRC appear to be asset stripping be it getting rid of staff via restructuring or moving out of buildings, whoever takes over when it crashes is going have to rebuild it from almost scratch and i'm not being dramatic when I say that. Another big cheese has also announced their early departure. Yep things are looking shaky to say the least in the NorthWest.
ReplyDeleteRebuild from scratch. I like the sound of that. Only one measure of success: reduction on amount and seriousness of offending
DeleteWhen everything has been stripped to the bone, problems will increase. The split into NPS and CRC created a gap in terms of risk management across organisational boundaries. This showed up how past communication and team working had 'added value' as everyone was working to a common purpose and management structure. Dividing staff and interchange agreements, working across and between organisational boundaries etc has proved to be costly. Most of the areas crucial for CRC funding involve effective working over the dividing interfaces. The systems developed are potentially the source of future downfall. Yes, we can move on, but irreparable damage has been caused and as one poster said, maybe the sooner the better the crash happens as a more lingering demise will result in staff moving on to other employment. If something doesn't happen soon, there will be less experienced staff available to pick up the pieces and be willing to consider ways forward. Now is the time for action, before it really is too late.
ReplyDeleteIn every location the NPS and the CRC have now realised they are seperate organisations. The line has been drawn in the sand and neither wishes to work together. This is evident across all grades of staff. I've sent seperate office entrances, interview rooms, parking spaces, stationary, even kettles and toasters. Because we cannot and will not work together what is now known as probation services will fail.
DeleteSince the CRC moved out I have very little contact apart from catching up with the gossip with former colleagues who are rapidly disappearing ! Still gave a conversation for PSRs but sadly it's not a 2 way thing for risk escalations I just get those dumped on me with minimal information and even less time to get to grips with case!
DeleteSame here, I'm NPS and always approach CRC about a case, co-defendant, family member or partner if with the CRC past or present. In the past 2 years I've been approached only twice by the CRC about a case I've previously supervised, written a PSR on or received via risk escalation or new sentence. For cases received from the CRC all have been poor supervised, lack of records and usually the culprits are agency PO's. I do know many a good PO/PSO in the CRC, but the practices encouraged by their SPO/Managers are pretty shoddy.
DeleteI'm a CRC PO and I do my best under pretty shoddy circumstances. I don't think agency PO's are fully invested although I am sure not true of all. 1 of 3 we have had in recent times would qualify for latter sentiment. They will need another soon because I intend to resign very shortly, had enough.
ReplyDeleteBuck stop with government with any luck
ReplyDelete