Thursday 31 October 2013

The Morning After

The House of Commons debate turned out better than I expected, despite the vast swathes of empty green leather being very obvious, but with some really very good speeches from the opposition benches. By contrast those by Chris Grayling and the government were lacking conviction, were confused and sounded arrogant as usual. In particular, he can't get his head around risk and still clings to the notion that NPS and CRC's will 'co-locate'

I know I'm hardly a disinterested neutral bystander in these matters, but listening to the argument from the opposition benches, the answer really is quite straight forward - give the extra work involved in supervising the under 12 month custody people to the existing well-performing probation trusts, at no extra cost. So simple, only ideology prevents it. 

If there was any fairness about the whole charade, the government would have lost the division handsomely. But there isn't of course and, supported by 56 weasel Liberal Democrats, the opposition amendment was lost by 66 votes. The full proceedings can be read here on Hansard.

I notice that a very full briefing document had been prepared by the PCA and although very thorough, at 13 pages in length I really wonder how many MP's would be bothered to plough through it. I'm no media expert, but wasn't this the right moment for a short and simple message from the PCA - you know something like 'give us the under 12 month people to supervise for no extra cost to the taxpayer'. 

To be honest this whole omnishambles is proving to me just how important the dark arts of media management really are, and sadly Napo, the PCA and PA seem to be completely at sea with it. It's quite obvious that nowadays the likes of the BBC have to be spoon fed and led by the nose to a good story. As usual, it doesn't get a mention. 

On the other hand, despite confirmation that several probation trusts are now officially blocking access to this blog, including South Yorkshire, Cumbria and Thames Valley, viewing figures continue to climb steadily and now number on average 2,000 hits daily. A new record was reached yesterday of 2,598, just eclipsing the previous figure of September 19th when the probation service was officially advertised for sale. This seems to be the place to come in order to let off steam, share information and hopefully get a bit of support. 

As was mentioned the other day,13 Police and Crime Commissioners have written to Chris Grayling expressing their concerns regarding the whole business, but to be honest it will only have real traction when independent or Tory Commissioners start voicing concern. Nevertheless, it's a welcome further piece of support and at one page in length, can certainly teach the PCA something about simple messages and brevity.

An article in the Guardian highlighting a recent report commissioned by NCVO into Payment by Results is interesting and can be paraphrased as 'there's a problem with the payment and the results':- 


One of the big problems our review has identified is poorly designed targets for payment. Some targets had nothing to do with the desired outcomes – others were actually detrimental. Worrying too, are examples of providers being required to bear the risk of achieving targets that are not within their control. This problem is often exacerbated by an apparent assumption from commissioners that there is a direct link between an intervention and a successful outcome, which fails to take into account the complexities of working with certain user groups.
For example, a charity may provide an excellent service for a drug addict, but if something happens beyond its control that affects their rehabilitation – such as a family breakdown or a housing crisis – the targets may not be met.
In some cases, PbR had been used not as part of a structured plan for service improvement but simply because it was the political flavour of the month. In these cases, a previous contract was often crudely converted to allow for PbR, which means receiving much later payments for the same work. Such contracts often contain more prescriptive terms to dictate how the service should be delivered, limiting the possibility for providers to try new ways of delivering outcomes. It brings all the financial risks for providers of PbR contracts, but without the benefit of allowing for innovation.
The Guardian contains another hard-hitting piece by Zoe Williams, highlighting the sad fact that much of what is going on in our field gets little attention:-


Probation work is to be contracted on a payment-by-results basis, which we have already seen fail, spectacularly, with the Work Programme (cost: £5bn; result: much worse than doing nothing). The pattern with deterring recidivism will be exactly the same as it was with getting unemployed people back into work – it isn't an accident. When you treat people as units of sale, a certain amount of human subtlety is lost. Sadly, this sort of work is almost all subtlety (let's call it "caring about each other", for brevity). The Howard League makes a convincing case for why the new system will be much more expensive, even without costing in its inevitable failures.
All this before we even consider the main point about probation – the thing that gets it into the news, for good or ill – which is that it protects the general population from dangerous prisoners. The Ministry of Justice doesn't even describe how it plans to distinguish between "high-risk" prisoners (who are staying in the public sector) and "medium-to-low-risk" ones (who are to be outsourced).
The root of this is about more than probation. If you're a large corporation looking to wring the UK government for every penny it has and then some, these are the places you look – away from the main traffic of public discourse, in the dank side streets, where careers get lost and battles become too dirty to yield a clear victor – probation, adult social care, prisons, tagging, court interpretation. This is where the cash is, because nobody's looking. If the Olympics fiasco had happened in outsourced security services for the UK Border Agency, we probably still wouldn't know about it. Hell, these fiascos have probably already occurred in the UKBA and we won't find out until 2027.
This is yet another example of the haemorrhaging of public money into private hands, and the first step in opposing it is to notice – resolutely notice – that it is happening.  

31 comments:

  1. Every day I trawl the web looking for little snippets about TR, Chris Grayling and dodgy outsourcing companies.
    I Google daily 'probation news' and click on 'more news' on that page which brings up local newspaper reports regarding probation. It's often court news i.e said person whilst still on probation did xy or z. Their names and address are often published along with other personal details.
    Should their catagory of risk not also be published?
    For example, A.N. Other whilst on probation for shoplifting and theft, assessed as medium risk, stabs man in bungled robbery.
    Would taking such a step highlight the complexities of risk assessments to the wider public, and give them a far greater understanding of what Grayling is actually playing with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect the answer is to do with confidentiality. Your suggestion strikes me as akin to publishing the PSR - if there was one. It highlights that much of what we do necessarily has to be confidential - the downside being the public don't know much of what we do and the politicians take advantage of that

      Delete
  2. Thanks Jim for your advice about PR - you are right.

    A perfect pithy comment I stumbled into via Twitter

    "It is what's just not just what works"

    https://twitter.com/DiTurgie/status/395626432891998209

    Andrew Hatton

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even the F.T thinks probation should be keep't in the public sector.

    http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/5444a682-416d-11e3-9073-00144feabdc0.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pay wall! What's the jist of the article? Cheers.

      Delete
    2. It is on the Napo forum already

      http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=291

      Delete
  4. One the subject of risk management, I was speaking to a OS in HMP Northumberland to arrange a sentence planning meeting. I was 'advised' to attend ASAP as once the planned job losses (up to 200 staff being made redundant) come into place, 'it might not be safe to go onto the wings as there will only be two staff on each wing'.

    What a damning indictment of privatisation!

    He advised me that the POA have been as effective as NAPO!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is not this blog alone that is being blocked and certainly not only by the three trusts mentioned in the post above. All blog sites across all 35 trusts of whatever nature and content are blocked by the browser security policies in place from MoJ and the IT contractor; Steria. Make of that what you will!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that's true, then this blog would be impossible to access from any Trust computer, wouldn't it?

      Delete
    2. Yes that's right, any trusts networked computers would prevent access - it would though be accessible from "standalone" PCs that most, if not all, trusts have installed to allow staff proper access to the Internet. The access available through the probation desktop is very limited altogether because of the same security policies I mention above.

      Delete
    3. Cannot get it on desktops but Trust helpfully provides wifi wgere we can :)

      Delete
    4. This is correct. I work in ICT and all blog sites are blocked under the over-zealous Steria/MoJ security policies. The only hope for Trusts to unblock sites is to make a business case for each individual case. And then there is no guarantee they will agree! I have tried and failed to unblock many sites in the past.

      Delete
  6. Great article of explanation from Sadiq Khan in New Statesman needs republishing in Mass media>

    "Every evening the British public settle down in front of their televisions, tuning into dramas and films set in courts, prisons and the police. All three are deeply engrained in their psyche as a result. They know a judge, police officer, court room or prison cell if they see one.

    But out of sight and out of mind, the Probation Service is a much less known branch of our criminal justice system. Ask a random punter on the street and they’d struggle to describe a probation officer’s average day.

    Not for one minute does that mean they’re any less important. Given that probation works with guilty criminals not locked up behind bars but living in our midst in our cities, towns and villages their role is arguably even more important. And they make a difference. Evidence shows those in their responsibility are less likely to reoffend than those unsupervised, contributing to making our society safer."

    For more : -

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/graylings-reckless-probation-privatisation-threat-public-safety

    Andrew Hatton

    ReplyDelete
  7. Two things about yesterdays debate disturb me greatly.
    1. A CRC can access information about the NPS by way of FOI request, but the NPS cannot request similar information from a CRC by the same means.
    2. If the NPS (30%?) of the existing service are to do all risk assessments which will include the 12mth and under group too, there will be precious little time to manage the high risk case loads.
    Will the NPS future be rooms full of people doing 50 hours of Oasys assessment a week?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cleveland police chief warns of dangerous offenders walking the streets if probation privatised.

      http://m.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/crime/dangerous-offenders-could-walk-streets-if-probation-is-privatised-warns-cleveland-police-chief-1-6198680

      Delete
    2. What is the 'criteria' for those who will be shunted to either CRC's or NPS?
      Does this open the door to people lodging disputes?

      Delete
    3. You need to look at all the stuff produced during the 'consultation' together with Joe Kuipers blogs.

      Delete
    4. Which, in effect says: lets look at who managed the most high risk and MAPPA cases on a particular day (say 30th September this year). Now lets give them some points. High Risk, Mappa = lots of points, Medium Risk = not so many points, Low risk = no points (oh to make it fair = very few points). Now we'll add up all the points and if you score lots of points we'll have you in the NPS if you score not many points we'll abandon you to the CRC.

      That is what the shifting criteria means.

      But - if you are half decent at your work you'll have put the controls in place to make sure the high risker is provided with the opportunity not to be an imminent danger to your community and can therefore be managed as a medium risk offender (sorry, client). Therefore, if you are half decent at your job, you'll score fewer points than colleagues who are more risk averse.

      I wonder if they realise that when they divide the caseload on 31st March next year loads of medium risk offenders (who are actually high risk offenders that were being managed by a public service who had good in mind rather than profit) are actually high risk clients who will morph into high risk offenders and stert to cause damage (from which recovery is unlikely).

      Just a thought.

      Delete
  8. Something which I missed yesterday - during the discussion about 'if they become high risk, they go back to the NPS' - so who in the CRC makes the decision that the risk has exceeded their capacity to manage? AND...I am sure I heard CG say that the risk assessment tool would be the current one and used by everyone!!!! Lovely jubbly - Oasys being thrust upon the private sector - kind a - makes my day!

    ReplyDelete
  9. There seem to be many things which Grayling said yesterday which aren't to be found in any of the planning documents I've seen, so either he's lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. Or there's a further change to the plan and civil servants are even as I type scurrying around tweaking the model to their master's diktat, following his remarks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it did seem he had a tenuous grip on the brief!

      Delete
  10. Today's Lords debates - Thursday 31 October 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/lords/todays-lords-debates/read/unknown/76/

    "Probation Services: Privatisation
    Question
    11.43 am
    Asked by
    Lord Ramsbotham
    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the request of the Chief Executives of Probation Trusts to delay the proposed privatisation of probation services for six months in the interests of public safety.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally) (LD):
    My Lords, there is a pressing need to drive down reoffending rates, which is why we are reforming the system for the rehabilitation of offenders. Public safety is always our top priority, and the department is working closely with trusts to minimise any disruption to the work that they do to protect the public.
    Lord Ramsbotham (CB):
    My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but letters from experienced chief executives of probation trusts directly to a Secretary of State suggest a worrying lack of trust in the system between them. Behind those letters is an understandable concern about the current timetable in which chief executives were required to start work on 28 October, three days ago, on a realignment process for their staff that has to be completed by 31 January 2014, including the confirmation of outcomes for all their staff. However, despite frequent requests, as of yesterday they had not been provided with any details of the number of posts, the workload or the resources on which they can base any assessment, let alone allocation. Apparently, much depends on a risk assessment process that has yet to be resolved. When will these details be available, and why will the Secretary of State not agree to a reasonable and sensible request for delay?
    Lord McNally:
    Any transformation programme is difficult, and keeping to a timetable is always challenging, but I do not believe that a six-month delay would promote better or more efficient work than is now being done. Of course we will keep these matters under review and check how progress is being made. There is a campaign in some quarters against the idea of these proposals but, in the main, we are having very constructive discussions with the trusts. I am confident that we will be able to keep to the tight but achievable timetable that we have set.
    Lord Beecham (Lab):
    Does the Minister think that the rushed changes to the probation service, before the House of Commons has even discussed the amendment passed by this House to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill requiring parliamentary approval for such changes, will prove less of an omnishambles than NHS reorganisation, the 111 helpline, universal credit, personal independence payments, legal aid or the sale of Royal Mail?
    Lord McNally:
    As for the idea that this is a rush, we are using 2007 legislation brought in by the last Administration and basing much our approach on the pilots in Peterborough and Doncaster which were brought in by the last Administration, so the idea that involving the private, charitable and voluntary sectors in probation work was thought up on the back of an envelope and is being pushed through in a few weeks is simply not true. We are moving in a direction that the previous Administration had already set in line. Admittedly we are making some radical changes, including bringing in a National Probation Service, which will give probation an authority and status which it has long lacked under previous schemes.

    Continued....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Continuing…
      Lord Dholakia (LD):
      My Lords, does my noble friend accept that in the short term there will be a considerable impact on the employment and retention prospects of probation officers? In the light of that, will he ensure that probation services are informed about job opportunities in the private sector and that the private sector gives priority to the employment of people from the probation service so that their experience is not lost to the criminal justice system?
      Lord McNally:
      I have great confidence in the human resources work that is being done to make sure that, where work is transferred across to the private and voluntary sector, existing probation officers get good opportunities for employment. My view is that many of the new entrants into this market will want to grab the experience of existing probation officers. I also hope that we can push forward with the idea of a chartered institute of probation, which again would give probation and probation officers the status that they previously lacked in our system.
      Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD):
      Can my noble friend say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the new owners of the community rehabilitation companies, when they are sold by the Ministry of Justice in the second stage of this process, will represent the diverse range of providers that he described and which the Government seek, rather than just a handful of large commercial organisations?
      Lord McNally:
      This also is work in progress and where we have learnt, including from some past mistakes. We have put aside money to allow would-be entrants, particularly in the voluntary sector, to prepare for bids. My impression is that we are tapping into a large unused resource. Let us never lose sight of what we are bringing forward. The part of the bargain that really excites me is that we are going to be able to give help, support and rehabilitation measures to those who are sentenced to less than 12 months, the very sector which includes some of the most prolific reoffenders. This is a rehabilitation revolution. Although transfer and change are always difficult, we have this on track. However, in answer to the original Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—and I know the care with which he takes an interest in this—we will be keeping these matters under constant review and, as always, I am willing to meet him on these matters.
      Lord Rooker (Lab):
      On the original Question to which the Minister just referred—and I have listened with care to his answers—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made it specifically clear that the starting gun was to be fired on 28 October. It is now 31 October. We are already three days late at the beginning. So what is the answer? When will that date and that target be met?
      Lord McNally:
      The Question implies a kind of sprint race where there is the firing of a gun. Some of these things have been in track for months and indeed years, and will continue in progress after October, after next April and after the October after that. We are managing change in a very important sector, whereas the Question implies that public safety must be paramount. The idea that we are somehow firing a gun and everybody rushes off ignores the reality of some careful preparation which is under way"

      Andrew Hatton

      Delete
    2. Lord McNally has so much confidence in NOMS' human resources work that he doesn't actually understand that existing staff will be transferred across to the CRCs (at least initially)... or is this another development in policy? They're going to need another envelope to write on.

      Delete
  11. Bubb Watch: -

    you may nave seen this earlier but in case not -

    http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/charity-sector-lobbied-jeremy-hunt-to.html#more

    Andrew Hatton

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jim,

    I had thought that his Lordship McNally would have scampered away following the AGM motion calling for his immediate resignation ( apropos meeting A4E TR Lobbyists?).. maybe my FOI request may offer further elucidation!...caught some of the HoC debate...spirited performances from SK/EC & others moving debate.. predictable dissembling b******s from Grayling et al...notice C Blunt sitting close by ...did he offer any aprecus??...

    Some faux indignation from former Probation Minister -DH .. who attended meeting on crime reduction at Labour Conference - sponsored by G4S! .. how he could NOT have foreseen the (mis) use of 2007 Act to bypass local accountability beggars belief...

    Maybe V Pryce will pitch up for PS- she has some v complimentary things to say about probation in her recently published prison diary!

    Regards

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jim and friends - after several tel calls today it seems that a number of Trust Chairs and/or Board members are unhappy with the situation that we are left with but are afraid to fly solo for fear of Grayling & co are picking them off - the concensus seems to be they'd feel happier & safer as a flock of Trusts; a murmuration, perhaps, given the season.

    Indeed, many wished that the vote had been closer (Lib Dems, take note) or even that the opposition motion had been upheld. They feel this would have allowed for a rollback from the need for industrial action - and would have preferred that outcome. The potential damage within Trusts is something they fear will ultimately damage service delivery.

    The overwhelming view amongst this unscientific poll was that there is a sound case for delaying matters for at least a year whilst relevant & appropriate pilots are undertaken & evaluated; but that the SoS's undue haste is unhelpful at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. McNally (from Andrew's post above): "Some of these things have been in track for months and indeed years, and will continue in progress after October, after next April and after the October after that."

    But who was in the know for all that time? Perhaps we should look to the independent consultants, the senior execs of newly formed CJS-related businesses, those who were once high in public office but have now conveniently moved across into a well placed money-making opportunities.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I encountered a new and deeply wounding form of abuse from one of my angry and very unhappy caseload today: "I hope G4S get your job - you're fuckin' useless."

    Ouch!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marvelous a client not afraid of giving their opinion - sign of hope for them - maybe?

      Andrew Hatton

      Delete
  16. This obsession with co-location is seen as the solution to all objections -however co-location will fail once the element of competition is introduced. Staff will also be employed on differing terms and conditions that will not necessarily be complimentary and as there is a degree of staff "churn" loyalties will begin to look very different. There will be confusion regarding responsibilities-dealing with a query for an NPS colleague will present problems if no other reps from the team are available -should someone from the CRC deal with it-time is money after all-no gain for the CRC. I read Grayling's contribution yesterday and began to wonder how much he was making up as he stood there. In five years time the NPS will be bloated with cases as the CRC shove up anyone who looks slightly dodgy .Caseloads of first time offenders will be great for PbR

    ReplyDelete