Earlier this year, I was struck by a report from HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) on letters sent to the public by the Crown Prosecution Service.
It analysed 351 responses for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors that could affect flow and understanding. The inspectors found some good examples of letters that were free of errors and contained a clear explanation. However, it also found:
- Only 66 letters were deemed to be of good quality. Even the 113 letters rated adequate contained some minor errors or mistakes.
- In some responses there was a reliance on using standard paragraphs when it was unnecessary or inappropriate.
- In many cases, the letter did not explicitly state whether a complaint was upheld either fully or partially or not upheld at all. In most cases it could be inferred from the letter what the outcome was. However, greater clarity would assist the recipient in understanding what are often lengthy letters.
This matters.
As the Chief Inspector says: “Written correspondence is one of the few ways the CPS communicates directly with members of the public. So sending out letters containing errors can lead to an erosion of confidence in the CPS and wider criminal justice system.”
They continue: “I recognise that not all complaints the CPS receive are justified, but the individuals making the complaints clearly feel aggrieved. Dealing with them courteously and effectively can help restore their confidence in the organisation and the criminal justice system.”
The report expresses disappointment that the quality of letters is so low, not least because the CPS has built in two levels of quality assurance for the letters it sends. The draft is quality assured by a more senior manager then checked again by the complaints coordinator. The report says: “Since the majority of letters sent still contain some errors, it is clear the quality assurance process is not as effective or robust as it needs to be.”
I’m less surprised by this than the Chief Inspector is.
Research suggests that 9 million working-age adults in England have low basic skills in literacy or numeracy and 5 million have low skills in both. This is alarming when you consider that the working age population of England and Wales is only 37.5 million.
It isn’t just the CPS that suffers with writing quality, therefore, it’s the population as a whole. Even with the two-stage quality assurance in place in the CPS, it could be that no one reviewing a letter will be confident in their literacy skills.
I think this is most evident in the finding that in some responses “there was a reliance on using standard paragraphs, when it was unnecessary or inappropriate.” This suggests:
- a lack of time to sit back and think carefully about the standard paragraph says and whether it’s entirely relevant
- a lack of confidence to amend a standard paragraph that been approved by someone higher up in the organisation to make it more appropriate.
Of course, literacy covers both reading and writing. This makes it especially important for writers to have the ability to write well (or well enough). As the HMCPSI report says, we have to think of the recipients, who have to read, understand and have confidence in what’s been written.
As a writer, I spend a lot of my time thinking about tiny nuances of language. It’s very easy to forget that, for many people, even the basics are a struggle.
Equipping more people with the skills they need to read and write more proficiently could make a real difference, not least because it’s estimated that a lack of essential skills such as communication costs the UK economy £22 billion a year.
Literacy isn’t a ‘nice to have’. It’s a ‘must have’.
