A Sad Day for Probation

Without doubt yesterday,19th September 2013, was a very sad day for probation because the minister responsible, Chris Grayling, advertised most of it for sale. Not just sad, but bizarre with the BBC 5 Live team thinking that Ben Gunn was the most appropriate person to invite to speak in defence of probation. 

Regular readers of his blog and endless tweeting will be fully aware that he is at best ambivalent about the Service and it's practitioners, and only last year was enthusiastically boasting about the likes of G4S courting his company.

I really begin to wonder about the standard of some BBC journalism. The topic was soon knocked off the rolling news agenda and yet again it didn't make it onto BBC Question Time last night. I despair to know what it takes to get the attention of the media and wider public to our plight.  

Anyway, the gun has been fired and the spin has got underway:-

A competition was launched today with more than 700 organisations from across the world looking to turn offenders’ lives around, as part of an annual £450 million package of rehabilitation contracts across England and Wales.

This includes hundreds of British organisations, employing many thousands of people, who are ready to get to work tackling our stubbornly high reoffending rates, that see almost half of all offenders leaving prison going onto reoffend within a year.

Voluntary sector organisations will play a big role in our plans, with 399 having expressed interest. Many Small and Medium Enterprises are also ready to link-up with other organisations to deliver our reforms. They sit alongside around 30 potential larger organisations ready to partner with smaller organisations to help break the cycle of reoffending.

Of course the reality is somewhat different with many organisations, particularly SME's wondering if it's worth the risk getting involved. People have long memories and some are still smarting from that other fiasco Grayling was involved in over at the DWP. Clive Martin CEO of Clinks writing in the Guardian explains:-

One outcome of the Work Programme that we surely all want to avoid is the detrimental effect on the hundreds of voluntary services dedicated to this essential work. Unsung, and perhaps even unknown by the public, the services provided by charities, community groups and social enterprises have been helping offenders desist from crime for decades. This is despite scarce resources which, as my charity Clinks found when we surveyed the sector in May, are growing ever scarcer.

The government says it is a core part of their vision that the prime providers will subcontract with voluntary services – and so we would expect from the architects of the "big society". But, as the fate of some Work Programme providers showed, small, not-for-profit organisations, like small businesses, simply cannot afford to carry the same risk of not being paid as large companies can – or the significant delays that PbR can entail.

Lets not forget that even those who support this whole TR omnishambles have grave doubts about the Payment by Result method of remuneration. Here is a comment from the former managing director of Serco Welfare to Work on the Social Market Foundation website:-  

The contracts, as currently proposed, will not incentivise investment in the extension/transformation of services to reduce reoffending. At best, they will maintain current levels – assuming it can be decided what measure of reoffending to apply, based on what geographies, tracked in what way. 

If a contractor takes over a probation area that is currently very successful, how can they be rewarded for performance improvement, when compared with a contractor taking over an area that is currently failing?

I do not believe contractors will cynically plan for an increase in recidivism, but they will not perceive these contracts as a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ – they are simply about the outsourcing of probation, with an emphasis on price competition. If there is any ‘value for money’ in the contracts, it will be derived from short-term savings at the risk of long-term rises in reoffending (and all the costs associated with that).

Of course this whole omnishambles is driven by ideology rather than evidence, and Chris Grayling confirmed this by choosing the Conservative Home blogsite to explain his reasoning and make the announcement ahead of the official MoJ press release:-

Today marks a major milestone in the development of our plans. There’s been enormous interest from both the private sector and the voluntary sector over the last few months. We’re now inviting them to state a clear interest in being part of our tendering process. And we’re setting out in much more detail how the new system will work. 

The Conservative Party will always take a tough line on crime. If we are not the party of law and order, we are nothing. But in the interests of our society and the victims of crime, we also need to understand the reoffending problem, and take real strides to solve it. That’s what these reforms are all about. 

Actually there are considerable risks involved to the public as all the unions, including Napo, explain in this article in the Independent. 

Amazingly, and by sheer coincidence on the same day the contracts were advertised, the MoJ also published a 'summary of evidence on reducing reoffending'. I must be honest and say that I haven't read it but I see Rob Allen has and he noticed it had this to say about Graylings oft-repeated plan for released prisoners to be met at the prison gate by 'old lags':-

It reveals that the effectiveness of mentoring – the apparent cornerstone of Grayling’s rehabilitative philosophy - is “mixed/promising”- not exactly a ringing endorsement.

This latest blog post by Rob Allen not only goes on to highlight the inherent dangers with Grayling trying to implement these fundamental changes without proper Parliamentary scrutiny, it also raises other spectres:- 

But what of the Major Projects Authority set up by the Coalition in the Cabinet office at the behest of the Public Accounts Committee to blow the whistle on such risks? Has it given the plans the green light and in particular had the chance to consider the impact of a policy which could give multi million pound contracts to companies being investigated for alleged fraudulent behaviour and potential overcharging on existing criminal justice programmes? What are the odds on the hapless Permanent Secretary of the MoJ being hauled over the coals by Margaret Hodge long after Grayling has moved on to answer for the wastefulness emerging from this  rushed and grandiose scheme.

Continuing with the theme of possible legal problems, I see that the shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan has written to Chris Grayling in extremely forthright terms:-

Avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny could, I believe, have catastrophic consequences. By avoiding scrutiny, you risk risk implementing a set of proposals which have been insulated from the important transparency of the parliamentary process - debated, refined and improved with the support of outside expert advice. However, if you and your officials believe the 2007 Act does provide the necessary powers, then I call upon you to publish as a matter of urgency any legal advice that supports your decision. Any failure to do so will be interpreted as a snub to Parliament, an insult to due process and an abuse of parliamentary power. 

Finally, lets end this with a couple of heartfelt pieces from people on the frontline and their thoughts on the sad sorry saga, The first is an open letter to Chris Grayling from a regular tweeting probation officer, and one rather more charitable than myself. It begins thus:-

Dear Mr Grayling,

This blog is not going to be full of hate, it wont seek to discredit you at every opportunity but I just wanted to say a few things before you dismantle a service which has not only given me a career, it has also saved lives.

I truly hope you understand the gravity of the changes you seek to make and those that you assess as suitable candidate to take over our work, are up for the challenge. Those who work for Probation now do a fine job, in fact the Ministry of Justice say all Probation Trusts are either ranked good or excellent. We are not failing. This service relies on is the goodwill of staff who, on the whole, go above and beyond because this is the type of people that Probation attracts. I have witnessed staff coming into work the day before major surgery to make sure a parole report is finished, I have seen them give up their lunch for a hungry client. I have also seen them get into trouble with their manager for missing deadlines, all because they go above and beyond for the men and women we work with.

The other is a quote from a comment left yesterday on this blog:-

Well done Mr Grayling - the handiwork of your many predecessors (some of whom have since recanted & spoken out in favour of humanitarian intervention for the less fortunate in our society) has finally been brought to its natural conclusion and the last bastion of reasonableness in our society has been breached. Irrespective of the dodginess of the credentials of those bidding, you've finally managed to crush the last gasping breaths of humanity out of criminal justice system.

You've divided the probation staff of England & Wales into those who will work for a publicly funded service & those who will work for a variety of unknown quantities.

You've divided a cohesive & experienced staff group into those who will be at the mercy of whoever holds political power & those who will be at the mercy of unknown shareholders.

You've placed the futures of the vast majority of our most damaged and vulnerable population in the hands of the most ruthless and selfish, i.e. the shareholders of private enterprise.

You've placed the futures of our most dangerous population in the hands of political pawns, i.e the public 'servants' whose sole desire is to please their masters &/or further their own political careers.

You've devastated a profession that has been primarily vulnerable because of its innate honesty and honour; a profession that has never been focused upon meeting artificial targets or political ends; that has never been motivated by financial reward; that has never been desperate to be in the limelight. It was, until politicians got their grubby hands on it, a vocational profession wherein those who chose to join & practice did so for "good" rather than for "profit" or "gain".

Postscript - I nearly forgot, according to Simon Israel of Channel 4 news, both G4S and Serco are indeed being allowed to bid for some of the work, despite all the on-going investigations. This article provides a very helpful list of all the contracts being investigated worth a billion pounds in total.