Criminal Justice Alliance Awards and The Recruitment Junction
This page provides independent context on The Recruitment Junction's Criminal Justice Alliance award, using evidence already in the public domain. It is operated by The Reasonable Adjustment and is not affiliated with The Recruitment Junction or the Criminal Justice Alliance.
Key points at a glance:
- Public records show over £130,000 in public funding for The Recruitment Junction, including £134,272.06 from Newcastle City Council alone, despite previous statements suggesting no public funding.
- Safeguarding and Equality Act concerns were raised by a disabled service user before the award decision and remain unresolved at the time of writing.
- Service was withdrawn within minutes of raising rights-based feedback, and multiple email addresses were later blocked while GDPR and Equality Act requests were active.
- This domain exists so that people who search for The Recruitment Junction can also see the documentary record, not only marketing and award materials.
Nothing here is legal or medical advice. It is a curated record of what has already been said, funded, or documented in relation to The Recruitment Junction and its public positioning.
What the Criminal Justice Alliance Awards recognise
The Criminal Justice Alliance (CJA) Awards highlight work that is presented as improving the criminal justice system, often through innovation, lived experience leadership, or partnership working. Winners and shortlisted organisations use these awards to signal credibility to funders, commissioners, and the public.
For many observers, an award implies that an organisation has been checked on ethics, safeguarding, and impact. In practice, award bodies may only see a snapshot based on nominations and supporting statements, not the full documentary record of complaints, funding, and governance history.
This page does not challenge the existence of the CJA Awards. Instead, it adds context that is unlikely to be visible in a short award citation. When public money, vulnerable people, and data rights are involved, awards should be read alongside verifiable facts.
Readers, commissioners, and funders can use this page as a starting point to check whether the narrative presented in award publicity matches the evidence available elsewhere.
The Recruitment Junction's Criminal Justice Alliance award
The Recruitment Junction has recently been promoted as a Criminal Justice Alliance award winner. Award publicity highlights themes such as lived experience, employment support, and second chances. At face value, this reads as a clear endorsement.
What is often missing from the award story is any reference to:
- Previous statements about funding that conflict with council and grantmaker records.
- Ongoing safeguarding and disability rights concerns, raised in good faith by a disabled service user.
- The timing of governance changes, such as the appointment of new trustees after scrutiny increased.
Awards influence how probation services, funders, and employer partners view an organisation. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether those decision makers have seen the full picture, including the documents hosted on this domain and on The Reasonable Adjustment.
CJA Awards article cluster on this domain
These pages live under the /cja-awards/ directory and are meant to be read together. They link out to the main Reasonable Adjustment article and to the broader TRJ archive.
- 2025 Outstanding Small Organisation – The Recruitment Junction
- Digital evidence, logs and award due diligence
- Fair process needs facts
- Reasonable adjustments for shortlisted organisations
- Legal context – Employment Tribunal and County Court
- How the TRJ case shaped The Reasonable Adjustment and Ki-Ki
- Resources for nominees, staff and service users
- CJA Awards FAQ
Funding, transparency and why it matters to award bodies
Public bodies and charitable foundations have confirmed significant grant funding to The Recruitment Junction since 2020. This includes six figure support from Newcastle City Council and other regional and national funders, as set out in the dedicated funding page on this site.
At points, public messaging from The Recruitment Junction has suggested an absence of public funding. That tension is explored in detail in:
For an award body such as the Criminal Justice Alliance, funding accuracy is not a side issue. If public money underpins a programme, that should be reflected honestly in both marketing and award submissions. Misalignment between evidence and narrative has direct implications for:
- Trust between service users and the organisation.
- Confidence among commissioners and referring agencies.
- The credibility of any awards that rely on those narratives.
This page exists so that anyone referencing the award can also see the underlying record and make their own informed judgement.
Safeguarding, disability rights and service withdrawal
Before this award was publicised, a disabled service user raised concerns about the way The Recruitment Junction handled feedback, reasonable adjustments, and subject access requests. These concerns included:
- Withdrawal of support shortly after a respectful email challenged a standardised CV template and questioned whether values matched practice.
- Blocking of multiple email addresses used to pursue GDPR and Equality Act rights.
- Delays and contradictions in responses to data rights requests and safeguarding escalation.
The evidence for these points is not guesswork. It is based on emails, PDFs, and grant documents which are preserved on:
- The Recruitment Junction evidence and document archive
- Blocked, Silenced, Ignored: My Experience with Unlawful Email Blocking
- The Spark That Lit The Fire
Award citations rarely include this kind of detail. That is why independent archives, and domains like this one, are important for balance.
Timeline: from small complaint to CJA award
Initial contact and feedback
A disabled service user was referred for employment support and queried the use of a rigid CV template that removed detailed achievements and lived experience context.
Withdrawal of support and complaint escalation
Support was withdrawn shortly after feedback was sent. Complaints and safeguarding concerns were raised with the charity and external bodies, including issues around reasonable adjustments and email blocking.
Evidence gathering and publication
FOI responses, grant documents, and correspondence were collected and published on The Reasonable Adjustment and therecruitmentjunction.co.uk so that others could see the primary material.
Criminal Justice Alliance award publicised
The Recruitment Junction was then promoted as a CJA award winner. This hub was created so that anyone reading the award news can also access the underlying record and decide how that award sits alongside the documented issues.
Who operates this hub and why
This domain is operated by The Reasonable Adjustment, an independent civil empowerment and public interest reporting platform. It exists to make evidence visible where vulnerable people, public money, and institutional power meet.
The same investigations are also published on the main site at thereasonableadjustment.co.uk, where broader work on probation, charities, medical access and digital governance is hosted.
The technical foundations for this domain, and others like it, are provided through Ki-Ki, a small consultancy that focuses on fast static sites, Cloudflare configuration, and evidence grade logging for organisations that need clear records, not glossy brochures.
The Recruitment Junction saga is one of the main reasons both The Reasonable Adjustment and Ki-Ki exist. What began as a small dispute over a CV template exposed bigger questions about honesty, safeguarding, and digital responsibility in the criminal justice charity space.
Frequently asked questions
Is this hub affiliated with The Recruitment Junction or the Criminal Justice Alliance?
No. This hub is independently operated by The Reasonable Adjustment. It is not endorsed by The Recruitment Junction, the Criminal Justice Alliance, or any funder. It simply brings together evidence already in the public domain.
Where can I see the underlying documents and emails?
You can start with the evidence and document archive on this domain. Many linked items are PDFs that preserve emails, grant paperwork, and screenshots. Articles on The Reasonable Adjustment add further context and analysis.
Is this just one person's opinion about an award?
The commentary belongs to the author, but the core of this hub is factual: dates, amounts, status, and correspondence. Where interpretation is offered, you can click through to the primary documents and decide for yourself.
How should funders or regulators use this information?
This hub is a signpost, not a court. If you are a funder, commissioner, or regulator, you can treat it as a checklist of questions: what did we know when decisions were made, what did we check, and what will we do now that further information is visible.