Hello there, can I start by thanking all of you for carrying on doing the jobs you're doing and looking after and supervising offenders, before I do my darndest to sell many of you off somewhere in just a few months time. I know very well that these are difficult times in Probation as my policies have helped to create massive uncertainty.
What I wanted to do was give you a chance to hear a bit more about why we're doing this and what we're trying to achieve, and I promise not to let a few facts get in the way of a story.
First of all you have to understand the financial background against which we're working. Our austerity measures (remember we are all in this together) means that my Department is supposedly facing huge cuts to its budgets over the next few years and we're having to take really tough decisions in the level of staffing in prisons, in the level of Legal Aid we pay, in what we do within the courts and make big cuts to the Department's head office as well.
That said, it fortunately hasn't stopped me garnering a veritable army of nearly 200 staff at the MoJ, authorising shedloads of additional cash to Trusts in extra Honoraria payments and yes, overtime as well, as I seek to push my challenging changes through regardless.
You should also know, as I am sure you don't already, that I have also shelled out untold amounts of Taxpayers money on Ernst and Young Consultancy (since they can always be relied upon to tell me what I want to hear rather than those pesky Trusts that I am seeing off in a few weeks).
But we're treating Probation a little differently, and I've won a little battle with my mate George at the Treasury (during a poker session at the RAC club) to treat Probation differently. That's not to imply that I have any actual treats in store for you, you must understand, but if we're going to carry on bringing down the cost of the Criminal Justice system in future, we have got to improve our performance on tackling reoffending and someone has to pay for privatisation and that's you and the wider public.
Now I know that you have helped to contribute to the lowest reoffending figures since 2007, and if you look at crime in Britain today, the number of people entering the Criminal Justice System for the first time is coming down, with fewer crimes overall being committed. But as I said earlier, we don't have to mention the important fact that you don't get to see those clients serving sentences of less than 12 months so I have conveniently decided to ignore this when making my plans to decimate the one service with a proven track record in making a real difference.
But more and more of our crime problem is about people who are committing crimes again and again (no I don't mean my fellow Ministers), going round and round the system and what we're doing, rather than giving resources up front to tackle this which would bring real value for the taxpayer, is to close Trusts, split the core functions in two and eventually make people redundant to meet a tough budget settlement, so that I can weigh off the privateers who want to cream off the top. So what we're actually doing is spending more money on creating a bidders market to bring their still to be proven skills to supervise those people such as my mate Jeffrey once did, who go to jail for 12 months and less, who at the moment walk onto the streets with £46 in their pocket, get no supervision and are more like to reoffend than anyone else.
Now you know and I know that the rate of reoffending for those people who are not supervised post prison is much higher than for those people who are, and that is something we have got to change. So the obvious question is why not just do it within the current system?
Well there's a number of answers to that. To start off we have a system that is much too bureaucratic. I mean you all went into the Probation Service with this over inflated idea of spending more time working with offenders, and all of the evidence I see is that the processes that we have in place means that much too little time is spent working with offenders, and too much time just dealing with the systems. So what I want to do is to create a Probation system where the professionals working in the front line have got much greater freedom, don't have the interference of central bureaucracy and have got much greater freedom to innovate and do things completely differently. Well we can all dream cant we?
Unfortunately for you and your colleagues, we have no intention of addressing the underlying problems that are the root cause of all this, such as inadequate IT systems, under resourced training programmes and the centralist bureaucracy of Noms, so I intend to fragment the service and hope for the best that the new IT systems that will be introduced by the private sector will do the job, even though they won't be joined up so to speak.
Now you know and I know that the rate of reoffending for those people who are not supervised post prison is much higher than for those people who are, and that is something we have got to change. So the obvious question is why not just do it within the current system?
Well there's a number of answers to that. To start off we have a system that is much too bureaucratic. I mean you all went into the Probation Service with this over inflated idea of spending more time working with offenders, and all of the evidence I see is that the processes that we have in place means that much too little time is spent working with offenders, and too much time just dealing with the systems. So what I want to do is to create a Probation system where the professionals working in the front line have got much greater freedom, don't have the interference of central bureaucracy and have got much greater freedom to innovate and do things completely differently. Well we can all dream cant we?
Unfortunately for you and your colleagues, we have no intention of addressing the underlying problems that are the root cause of all this, such as inadequate IT systems, under resourced training programmes and the centralist bureaucracy of Noms, so I intend to fragment the service and hope for the best that the new IT systems that will be introduced by the private sector will do the job, even though they won't be joined up so to speak.
Anyway, (and hoping you are all still awake out there?) we looked at whether that could be done across the current system of 35 trusts and actually the last government looked at whether we would provide supervision for the under 12 month group, using the current system. They, like us, came to the conclusion it wasn't affordable (despite the hundreds of £billions spent on managing reoffending that you keep telling us could be better invested) and that we would need to do things differently. I don't think we can afford to carry on with a situation where we're not supervising those 'under 12 month people' (I know you all prefer to call them 'clients'). And the other thing, what was it now? Oh yes, I don't think we can carry on with a situation where we don't have a proper, through-the-gate service. So that means I have decided to not include you in any transparent bidding process because the bottom line is that I need to make savings. There is absolutely no reason why several hundred 'Old Lags' can't help turn people's lives around and lead by example. I just need to find them from somewhere!
So let me explain to you briefly about the two new organisations.
The Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service. The CRCs are going to have much greater freedom than has ever been the case before for front line professionals to do things completely differently, and they give a real opportunity to all of you to think about new ways of providing support to offenders. You will have to muddle through a bit between 1st April and share sale when the cavalry arrives, as I am a little short on detail right now about how this will actually look, but I am sure it will all be sorted with hopefully no risk to the public.
So for example, if I was running a CRC one of the first things I would do is set up a housing operation. I'd probably negotiate deals with landlords, so that you knew when somebody comes out of prison that you've got somewhere to place them like a 'third bedroom' or some such. Let's ignore for one minute the fact that many landlords won't touch social tenants with a bargepole and see them as bad for business let alone ex-offenders. For the truth is that Treasury rules just don't allow us to do that kind of thing in the public sector, but the CRCs will have that sort of freedom in the future and I think that can make a real difference and I think there'll be real opportunities to build on some of the things that the trusts do at the moment, for example in tying in with Welfare To Work Services and the success of my 'Work Plan' experiment.
And there is a really important point to make as well. I know there's been a lot of chatter around the system (that bloody pain in my a**e Napo has not stopped wittering on about - G4S and Serco, who as you know have decided that they are not going to be involved in the bidding process to take over CRCs) and yes, I know that you say I should not have even given them that option, but let's try and draw a line under their activities shall we? Instead we've got a list of partnerships very often between private sector organisations and voluntary sector organisations. Some of the biggest charities that work with offenders, coming together to hopefully take up the partnership role with the public sector that will exist in the new system. And I think there's a really exciting opportunity for people to build their careers, working with different organisations that offer not only the opportunity to do more within the CRCs, but also a wide variety of different and positively inferior terms and conditions giving them the opportunity to do more, for less, more broadly in future.
The world we're ultimately trying to create is one without you, where we have a partnership between public sector, voluntary sector and private sector: Private sector to help us run our systems and our processes and our organisation more efficiently as has been consistently shown in many outsourced IT and procurement contracts across many departments (according to my 'Spin Doctor).' The Voluntary sector will add mentoring skills to the work our Probation professionals already do once they find the people, and of course we will continue to use the risk management skills and expertise that already exist within the public sector, but you will just have to whisper to your colleagues in the NPS or CRC between yourselves when you need to.
And the other point to make, which I think is also very important, is the process of bringing in new partners is not going to be about price, we're not about selling the operation to the lowest bid. That is not what this is about. This is about improving quality, it's about innovation. So what we're going to be asking the people who bid to take on the CRCs to do, is to demonstrate to us that they're giving us the best value in terms of improved reoffending outcomes, for the work that we're doing with them and for the money that we're paying. *Unfortunately, as you all now know since I made the DVD, not as many bidders as as I thought would do so made the first cut so I may have to review that statement as we go along.
The world we're ultimately trying to create is one without you, where we have a partnership between public sector, voluntary sector and private sector: Private sector to help us run our systems and our processes and our organisation more efficiently as has been consistently shown in many outsourced IT and procurement contracts across many departments (according to my 'Spin Doctor).' The Voluntary sector will add mentoring skills to the work our Probation professionals already do once they find the people, and of course we will continue to use the risk management skills and expertise that already exist within the public sector, but you will just have to whisper to your colleagues in the NPS or CRC between yourselves when you need to.
And the other point to make, which I think is also very important, is the process of bringing in new partners is not going to be about price, we're not about selling the operation to the lowest bid. That is not what this is about. This is about improving quality, it's about innovation. So what we're going to be asking the people who bid to take on the CRCs to do, is to demonstrate to us that they're giving us the best value in terms of improved reoffending outcomes, for the work that we're doing with them and for the money that we're paying. *Unfortunately, as you all now know since I made the DVD, not as many bidders as as I thought would do so made the first cut so I may have to review that statement as we go along.
And then there's the National Probation Service, which is going to have a very different focus to the CRCs. Looking after the most challenging offenders, working on a multi-agency basis to supervise people who are a real risk to our society (unlike the 25% of low and medium risk offenders who move across tiers over the course of the year), and having responsibility for risk assessment, for allocation of offenders to different risk categories, for decisions about recalling people to court and I think increasingly operating in new areas as well. Unfortunately, I am not able to substantiate the risk factors behind all of this as I am not prepared to release the risk registers previously prepared by my department.
I'm for example very keen to see the National Probation Service much more involved in decisions about release on Temporary Licence, so that we've got real expertise in taking decisions in an area where we've had problems in the last few months. So let me tell you a bit about the process going forward. We've already got the new leadership teams of the two organisations in place, and we're moving quickly to shove people into their new teams despite not having much in the way of facts (told you that earlier) as I don't want there to be a longer period of uncertainty, no honestly, I don't. But then after that there is going to be a long period of bedding in, in the public sector, making sure all the new systems are working such as being able to pay you on time. We're not rushing to move problematic cases from one part of the future to another as we don't yet have a clue about how can do this safely, so mark my words we're not going to take risks with public safety. We'll take most of this year to continue bedding in the new systems, long before we ever actually involve any of the new partners who are going to be coming in and working with us.
Now I know that all of this is disruptive and unsettling, and there are of course going to be changes so you will just have to get on with it. We are inevitably going to be merging back office operations, we'll be simplifying systems and there's no doubt there'll be some changes in the organisation as a whole and I'm pleased to say we've now reached agreement with the unions on the transition arrangements, on the voluntary redundancy package, on issues around continuity of service, and I think there's now a really good package for everyone that I hope will give you greater confidence going forward. There are small issues such as new collective bargaining arrangements, interchange agreements and recognition that could still make the whole thing go south but let's be positive shall we?
I'm for example very keen to see the National Probation Service much more involved in decisions about release on Temporary Licence, so that we've got real expertise in taking decisions in an area where we've had problems in the last few months. So let me tell you a bit about the process going forward. We've already got the new leadership teams of the two organisations in place, and we're moving quickly to shove people into their new teams despite not having much in the way of facts (told you that earlier) as I don't want there to be a longer period of uncertainty, no honestly, I don't. But then after that there is going to be a long period of bedding in, in the public sector, making sure all the new systems are working such as being able to pay you on time. We're not rushing to move problematic cases from one part of the future to another as we don't yet have a clue about how can do this safely, so mark my words we're not going to take risks with public safety. We'll take most of this year to continue bedding in the new systems, long before we ever actually involve any of the new partners who are going to be coming in and working with us.
Now I know that all of this is disruptive and unsettling, and there are of course going to be changes so you will just have to get on with it. We are inevitably going to be merging back office operations, we'll be simplifying systems and there's no doubt there'll be some changes in the organisation as a whole and I'm pleased to say we've now reached agreement with the unions on the transition arrangements, on the voluntary redundancy package, on issues around continuity of service, and I think there's now a really good package for everyone that I hope will give you greater confidence going forward. There are small issues such as new collective bargaining arrangements, interchange agreements and recognition that could still make the whole thing go south but let's be positive shall we?
So (finally) what does the future look like? Well my vision is of a network of CRCs, working in the resettlement prisons, preparing people for release, meeting them at the gate, mentoring and supporting them for 12 months after they leave prison, with a particular focus on that new group of people who will be supervising the under 12 month people, really bringing down reoffending rates and doing it in new ways, finding innovative ideas to help them get their lives back together. Sadly, as the years go by and even supposing that this will work, that won't involve many of you whether you soon find yourself in the NPS or a CRC.
Thank you and HNY
Thank you and HNY
Amusing but a more intelligent critique may have been more appropriate?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous on 14 January 2014 at 19.06 is welcome to write same and publish.
DeleteAndrew Hatton
Napo did of course publish an intelligent critique of this weeks ago, in the course of presenting evidence to The House of Commons Justice Committee. I was very impressed with those, but think they might have benefited from more exposure.
Deletehttp://www.napo.org.uk/about/news/news.cfm/newsid/326
Andrew Hatton
http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/News/Northampton-News/Report-discovers-a-mixed-picture-of-improvement-at-Northamptonshire-Probation-Trust-20140114125600.htm
ReplyDeleteNorthamptonshire Probation Trust has still got a lot of work to improve.
ReplyDeleteThis is the message from a report published today by Liz Calderbank, Chief Inspector of Probation,
The report stated Northamptonshire Porbation Trust had made some improvements in their work with adults who had offended, but still needed to improve some aspects of public protection work.
This inspection is the last of six where inspectors are focusing on the quality of work with violent offenders, which forms a significant proportion of the work of any Probation Trust.
The purpose of the inspection is to assess whether the sentence of the court is delivered effectively, and whether work with the individual offender protects the public, reduces the likelihood of reoffending and provides a high quality service to courts and victims.
Inspectors also examine the extent to which workers engage positively with individuals, ensuring that they comply with their sentence and are able to respond constructively to the work designed to change their behaviour.
Inspectors were pleased to find that:
- sentencers were satisfied overall with the quality of reports and with the confidence and experience of probation staff working in court;
- the trust had an appropriate range of accredited programmes available to address the different types of offending;
- the majority of cases had made either good progress or some progress in tackling the most significant factors associated with their likelihood of reoffending;
- in most cases where alcohol misuse was a factor, this was taken into account and relevant interventions had been delivered; and
- most victim contact work was undertaken appropriately and the quality of the work was good.
However, inspectors also found that:
- although the risk of serious harm classification was correct in most cases, initial screenings were not completed sufficiently well in some cases, with full details of the current - offence and relevant previous behaviour not always taken into account, or analysed sufficiently;
- insufficient attention was paid to child safeguarding in relation to the offender’s contact with any children and young people in a quarter of cases; and
- insufficient priority was accorded to the safety of current and potential victims by the offender manager in a third of cases;
- and work with offenders was not actively reviewed as appropriate and assessments were not always reviewed promptly following a change in circumstances.
Inspectors made recommendations to assist Northamptonshire in its continuing improvement.
These included: on ensuring that risk of harm to others is assessed accurately and promptly reviewed as appropriate; on giving additional attention to work to protect children and young people; and on ensuring that there is effective management oversight of all cases involving the protection of children and of those classified as posing a high risk of harm.
Liz Calderbank said: “We found that the Trust had been addressing the recommendations from our last inspection to improve the quality of risk of harm work in individual cases. However, there was room for further improvement in the quality of risk of harm assessment and planning and management scrutiny. Insufficient priority was accorded to the safety of victims.
“We were impressed by the way both managers and staff were clearly keen to learn from our findings.
“Our inspection report contains a number of recommendations addressing our concerns that are designed to promote the necessary improvements.’
I must admit to having found this a bit ridiculous. It was way too long and I lost the will to live part way through and whilst I appreciate the need for some humour to relieve the depression, I don't need this from NAPO. What I need from NAPO is sensible, informative updates and some reassurance! Sorry.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're absolutely right - I didn't bother reading it all either and I was a bit surprised they've got that much time down there at Chivalry Road. My judgement is clearly off having watched the charade in Parliament - I'm depressed and pissed off, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
DeleteGot to find some way of spending members' subs before everything gets blown apart.
DeleteCheap shot, admitedly, but I'm not feeling terribly benevolent at the moment.
DeleteI was thinking that all has gone a bit quiet on the t r front. Uncertainty drags on. And my only hope is that all the wrangling over who will answer the phones (etc) in colocated bliss will cause more problems to come. Then we get this mock grayling message. As if the first one wasn't bad enough from grayling himself. It's a bit dire and I am getting to the point I would rather just get on with my job and have some stability.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is exactly what they want us to do/think!!!
Delete“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed!
Adolf Hitler.
Probation has never been stable. Always crisis management work with clients. Staff threatened with privatisation whip to get more out of us and work even harder. The best way to deal with this is remove all goodwill and highlight the weakness of CRC/Mutuals in public. Staff are protected by whistle blowing legislation. The best way to attack is from within. make visable what is hidden.
DeleteSadly I believe we have been attacked from within, and agree with others' comments posted the other day about NOMS being the architects of this "restructuring" process. Our own colleagues & ex-colleagues are responsible for pushing this through, empowered by their own sense of importance. Grayling has merely been a convenient chauffeur for the NOMS-mobile.
DeleteUsed to work for free without worry because I believe strongly in a mixed economy, a public service ethos, and that was my choice. I have never seen people work so hard as in the Probation Service. Not one single minute more than my contracted hours. Jim I hope we will still have this place to share and record the inevtible examples of waste and farce as time goes on. You may decide otherwise of course! Thanks for all your time and effort to date in this.
DeleteNot many of our colleagues in NOMS. Mostly prison governors who know little about managing offenders without locks, keys and a big fence. They think Probation is a waste of time. Look at their approach to Offender Management in prisons. Everything else is more important. Until they get out. But they don't need to worry about it then as it's no longer their problem. The problem started with Carter.
ReplyDeleteWell I can think of at least one - Paul Wilson CBE and NOMS non-executive Board Member,former Chief of West Yorkshire, ROM and CEO of London. An intellectual lightweight, lack of personality and the last person I can think of as being an appropriate person to protect the proud ethos of probation. Just a personal view you understand.
DeleteIan Lawrence has really got it wrong by this ' contribution', I give lots of my time to NAPO representing members and feel disgusted really by this as it plays right into Grayling's hands and the Tory view of trade unionists making personal attacks on those who oppose them. He has let us down.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anon 05:21 as I too have never seen people work so hard and give so much unpaid time above their contracted hours as probation staff. I have stopped the extra hours on my day job and actually I feel liberated and at least in control of my own personal TR crisis. My advice to all colleagues is TAKE CONTROL by doing what you are paid for and delivering this, work within your hours, take your lunch breaks, log your work travelling time ( eg to meetings/ prisons) and ensure this is within your working hours.If you need to think of this as resistance, do so. I think of it as waking up to the reality of our situation and keeping my head down whilst this whole thing fails.
Well said Anon on 15 January 2014 06:20
DeleteIan Lawrence probably did get that wrong BUT he has taken on the General Secretaryship at Napo's most difficult time EVER (almost certainly) at a time when Napo HQ had experienced many problems which we ordinary members through our appointed/elected reps had not got a grip of.
We all have days (well I did & do) when we don't do the best thing but some of us do not have to learn our trade in the glare of onlookers like a Union General Secretary does.
He along with other has done some great work, such as those presentations to The House of Commons Justice Select Committee which I highlighted (up page).
That Committee has yet to report and probably will do before parliament finally finishes with the ORB.
I lobbied my Grayling acolyte MP yesterday - they know there is opposition but believe they are right and aim to force TR through, we will only stop it by VERY determined efforts and may not be able to stop it before implementation, so will have to see it fall apart afterwards.
I personally, value my reputation and would (were I still working) probably go to considerable lengths to not be any sort of probation worker at the time it falls apart because there will be - collateral damage - so if folk think they HAVE to stay with probation, I urge them to stay close to their Union whether it be Napo, Unison or GMB and be VERY careful about all commitments they make, especially in writing or in evidence at court or parole board hearings and such like (e.g. MAPPA meetings).
I suggest ALL personal commitments are qualified by words like - "as far as circumstances permit within my job description, and other professional demands" - maybe Napo or Jim Brown's commenters can come up with a phrase - folk will be comfortable to use, which make it clear professional control of what is happening is very limited as is employees opportunities to influence it?
Andrew Hatton
"I am only following orders"; "I was only following orders" ; "they told me to do it";
Delete