Well it looks as if at long last someone in the media has cottoned on to the fact that there just might be a few good story lines in probation. It seems like the BBC have commissioned a drama series, 'Public Enemies' based on a youngish lifer returning to the community after serving 10 years and a youngish probation officer returning following a period of suspension. It's absolutely great to hear that we're going to get some mainstream exposure, but already I'm beginning to feel just a little uneasy about the probable 'forbidden love' angle. Yes obviously it happens and I've already said that the current gender and age imbalance makes it highly likely, but just when I was hoping some really important issues might get an airing, I'm disappointed that this appears to be the angle chosen to 'sex it up a bit'. I can forgive the inevitable inaccuracies in procedure etc, but not if the authors skirt around the really important stuff.
The Ministry of Justice published its Business Plan yesterday and our worst fears and concerns have been duly confirmed as to what the future looks like for probation. Somewhat ominously the plan baldly states it will:-
"Create a system introducing greater involvement of the private and voluntary sectors in the rehabilitation of offenders, including use of payment by results, to cut reoffending. The Department will no longer……provide rehabilitation services directly without testing where voluntary or private sectors can provide it more effectively and efficiently."
Basically, if the likes of Nacro or Serco feel like it, pretty well everything we currently do is up for competitive tender. Graham Beech, strategic development director for crime reduction charity Nacro is quoted in the Independent as saying:-
"What is proposed represents a radical change which will open up opportunities for charities like Nacro to play an even greater role in reducing reoffending and making society safer."
Now obviously it's going to be extremely important as to how the Unions involved decide to repond. Again the Independent has this from Napo:-
Plans to treat more mentally ill offenders and drug users in the community rather than sending them to jail are admirable but "fraught with difficulties", the probation union Napo warned today.
Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of Napo, said the Government would need to find hundreds of millions of pounds to make the proposals a reality.
But we all know that and the Government has spelt out how the money will be raised. I can't help thinking that the sensible approach is to go for what just might be achievable, recognising along the way what just might be impossible. Payment by Results is coming, that's a fact and any attempt to deny it will ultimately prove futile and a self-fulfilling prophecy. I would whole-heartedly embrace the concept, no matter what misgivings I might have, for services focused on offenders serving 12 months or less. This is precisely the group Ken Clarke has to demonstrate progress with in order to achieve much of his reduction in re-offending rates, and is the group probation currently does nothing with. But the quid pro quo is that Ken agrees to back track on the provocative market testing of our key functions and instead have some meaningful discussion about efficiencies. I think blanket opposition to PbR will not only get us nowhere, it will appear as just plain bloody-minded, especially in the absence of any proof either way of its effectiveness.
Two thoughts and I'll make the less controvertial one first. There is no quid pro quo. The MoJ holds all the cards (save for those held by the treasury). Ken can call for a change in procedure or ambition and there is little the probation service can do about it.
ReplyDeleteMore significantly Serco and its ilk is likely to do well not just on price, but because experience suggests they will have simpler processes. At my local court, probation are rarely in court to hear the magistrates explain what kind of report is required nor why. The poorly designed form is completed and at the end of the day the legal advisor takes the batch and drops them off at the probation office. Meanwhile the defendant has been remanded in custody or more often released on bail not knowing when he would be required to attend for the interview. Probation says they write to make and confirm appointments. Often the defendant is bailed to an address that is not his (and throughout it could be she/her) so the post never quite catches up with the defendant. Surprise, a nil report is submitted. Case adjourned, again for a full three to four weeks for reports, but again, the probation service don't have a diary. Eventually the report is prepared and the matter sentenced. Sometime later, the defendant breaches the terms of the community order and is broght to the breach court. These are proceedings instigated by the probation service. If there is an officer in court he or she will never, never ever have the file with details of the original offence and often no record of the progress made under the order. Requests for the file to be fetched from the office (in the same building) are met with a glare best described as hostile. And it can never, ever be found. The volume of papers probabtion staff must take home probably explains why so many vans park adjacent to the courthouse. (So much for data protection by the way.)
As to fast delivery reports - forget it. Same day reporting almost never available and fast is interpreted as "in a week or so".
If there is a probabtion officer in court when the matter is adjourned for sentence, it seems there is some rule to prevent the offier from noting what the magistrates say. This has to be written on the same form. Why? Are probabtion officers in court not literate? Do they need a friend to read the report for them, or what, exactly?
Serco and others, knowing they will not be paid for such performance will do better. The probation teams could do soa nd choose not to. That is a business decision made over many years. I hear the sound of chickens coming home to roost.
Thanks for that very full comment - all I can say is that I simply do not recognise the service your court is getting from the local Probation Service. There must be a Service Level Agreement between the two organisations and my hunch is that the terms are not being met. It is most unfortunate that you're basing your views on the Service as a whole on this experience. The matters you describe need bringing to the attention of your District Courts Manager who should have a spirited discussion with senior Probation Management.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteI am vice chair of my bench and can assure you and others that we have raised this matter at very senior levels, as have the judges in the nearby Crown Court, who, it seems, have no better a service than do we.
I know because I have visited other courts in the region and further afield, that a better service can be given. But if a team can get away with poor, non SLA compliant performacne for so long, the door to other providers remains open.