Righting a Wrong

At last we got a decent question about the TR omnishambles on the flagship BBC Radio 4 any Questions? But according to Chris Grayling, he's not privatising the Probation Service and merely 'righting a wrong'. Having a public relations background, I suppose we shouldn't be that surprised that he takes the art of dissembling to new heights. 

With not a hint of shame he refuses to accept that 70% of the Probation Service being handed over to outside bidders amounts to privatisation and as usual feigns moral outrage that 45,000 people leave prison with only £46 in their pocket and no support. This is not our fault and would be something we would be more than happy to tackle, but Grayling refuses. 

I think these two comments pretty much sum things up:-

So its hats off to the probation officer on AQs; boo's to Sadiq Khan for missing the main chance, too busy being chummy with Chris; and hisses to the slimy Grayling who hasn't got a clue about the damage he's inflicting upon us all. In fact that's the scary bit of insight that was brought home to me - he has no idea, and as such doesn't give a damn. His response is a programmed mantra about under 12 month prisoners and the £46 in their pocket.

If you didn't catch it tonight listen to the rerun tomorrow lunchtime. Well worth a listen. Debs Borgen (PO based in London) put a brilliant question about the privatisation of Probation and when given the right of reply incisively challenged CG on the accuracy of what he was saying and the morality of his decisions. CG sounded nervous when challenged, Sadiq Khan sharpened up his response as time went on in the debate but was quite bleathery to start with. The UKIP chap wasn't too bad, but still the overall impression (as ever) is that outside our field no-one has a clue what we do. And therein lies our biggest hurdle to overcome. 

Sadiq Khan didn't seem to appreciate G4S and Serco were out of the bidding and Teather was just clueless. Anyway fortunately, as well as being repeated at ten past one this afternoon, we have a brilliant opportunity of responding by means of the phone-in programme Any Answers? which immediately follows at 2.00pm and here's the details:-

If you have a comment or question on this week's programme or would like to take part in the Any Answers? phone-in you can contact us by telephone or email. 

Tel: 03700 100 444 
Email: any.answers@bbc.co.uk 
You can also text on 84844 or tweet @BBCRadio4 using #bbcaq 

Of course the best and obvious way of 'righting the wrong' of the under 12 month people Grayling continually refers to, is to give the work to the existing Probation Trusts, and it's only political dogma and uncertainty about costs that prevents this. We were told by a commentator to this blog that Napo is involved in researching a costing for this plan B, but unless this information can be produced rather sooner than later, the game really will be up.

It's really important that the LibDems in particular get to understand there really is another and better way, and they understand the realities of this absurd split between CRC's and NPS highlighted by these comments:-

Whilst there does not appear to be job descriptions for CRC's or NPS, what is apparent is that CRC are not involved in writing parole reports or Pre-Sentence Reports. It is clear that this fuck up won't have been sorted out by 01.04.14. What will happen is you will get disillusioned staff giving less of a damn about the transition process and there are also likely to be getting CRC PO's asking when they can stop writing PSRs, parole reports and seeing high risk cases. I have been assigned to NPS and you know what, I don't blame CRC PO's for demanding that the above stated tasks are taken from them. If I no longer give a damn, I dread to think what CRC PO's are thinking. In this line of work it is a very dangerous situation to have a staff not caring about what happens.

**************
There are a mountain of problems that have been invented due to this proposed splitting of the service I have worked in for 37 years. I am an SPO with a wide range of experience. On the basis of doing a job I was directed to by our CO for a whole 6 days I was automatically assigned to the CRC. A company that does not exist, no job description and no notion of where I might be asked to work across what will be a huge area.

Grayling seems to think that co-location is the answer to everything. Let us look at a likely instance. A high risk tier 4 offender kicking off in the waiting room. The colocated NPS team of 5 has one person on leave, one off sick and the other three otherwise engaged. Who do you ask to deal with the guy in the waiting room? The likely response of any private company will be "well you are not covered to deal with such individuals" and it will be your own fault if things amis in any way. The constraints that will be imposed on CRC staff have not really been considered but will affect services in a profound way.

****************
Currently an OM with concerns about raised risk of person A would cross the floor with file to SPO office, discuss action plan, implement. Or seek advice from colleagues. In the brave new world OM would presumably (who knows?) fill in a form repeat info ad nauseam see a manager, manager contacts another manager. Manager not available? call not returned? Email? Fax? No response? Send file? Courier file? File lost? Inadvertently returned? Transfer form returned section twenty something incomplete? Meanwhile what is person A doing? Grayling revealed his true colours amidst his vacuous comments last night "well they would say that wouldn't they" regarding NAPOs risk warnings. NAPO obviously just an insignificant bunch of scaremongering lefties spoiling his party the misguided fools. He has no idea and seems to have others who should know better fawning at his feet.

I understand that Napo has been briefing MP's as to the serious risks to public safety that will inevitably follow the dangerous, absurd and ill-thought-out split between CRC's and NPS. This should make everyone's hair stand up at the potential for chaos and confusion that will occur, as sure as night follows day:-  

Risk Escalation and Transfer of cases from Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) to the National Probation Service (NPS)

Under the government’s proposals to part-privatise the Probation Service, the new model will see all offenders classed as low and medium risk being supervised by new private-sector Community Rehabilitation Companies. The remaining offenders assessed as high risk will be managed by the public-sector National Probation Service. In 25% of cases supervised by the existing Probation Service, the risk assessment changes over the lifetime of the court order or prison licence.  When that change is from medium to high, action needs to be taken immediately. Napo has had sight of the draft “Risk Escalation Process” documents which are intended to govern that process. The established definitions of medium and high risk are as follows:

Medium Risk of Serious Harm: The person has “the potential to cause serious harm but is unlikely to do so unless there is a change in circumstances”

High Risk of Serious Harm: The person has the potential to cause serious harm and the potential event could happen at any time.”

The documents we have seen are, in our view, based on established evidence such as the factors known to increase risk of harm and they rely on the skills of highly qualified Probation Officers in spotting risk factors, assessing information and acting swiftly to reduce risk.  However, the new structure injects an unnecessary and bureaucratic process. 

It is worth considering the difference between what happens currently in an escalation of risk and what is proposed. At present, if a practitioner is concerned about risk escalation, they speak to a line manager. On the basis of the information, the manager will make a professional judgment to reallocate the case or to offer advice depending on the nature of the risk. The decision is recorded on the case management system and the whole process would take around 30 minutes.

The new proposal is for the CRC practitioner to write a lengthy report, then their manager countersigns it, they forward the documents to the NPS, a new practitioner reviews the information, asks their manager to countersign it and then either writes a new risk management plan within 15 days or gives the offender an appointment with the NPS.  On Napo’s estimate, the report would take approximately 90 minutes to write, 30 minutes to check the information and countersign it in addition to a further 60 to 90 minutes at the NPS end. The same process would now take over 3 hours.

What currently takes under 30 mins will be a lengthy 3 hour process of form filling, counter signing, faxing of documents, two practitioners, two managers, two organisations. A nightmare and a red rag to the front line.  

It should be noted that in the case of an emergency escalation of risk, practitioners in either the CRC or NPS would call the police. As now, community safety would take immediate priority and the paperwork would follow. However, in this new process yet more time will be taken away from front line practice.

The government has suggested its reforms will increase innovation and free up professionals to concentrate on face to face work with offenders. The Secretary of State quoted evidence from the Justice Select Committee that found only 25% of practitioners’ time was spent with offenders. His plan to fragment the Probation Service will significantly increase the bureaucracy not reduce it.

After referral to the NPS, a decision may be made to either transfer the case or for it to remain within the CRC with a new risk management plan.  Potentially, there are two very serious problems with this.

First, if the case remains with the CRC, the practitioner managing the increased risk may not have the skills to keep the risk at medium and may find themselves in an endless bureaucratic cycle of referral and re-referral to the NPS.

Second, there may be a good relationship between the offender and practitioner in the CRC which, to some extent, stabilises the risk of harm.  The transfer to the NPS may therefore create extra risks.

Currently, both of those problems exist but are easily resolved because there can be closer oversight of the case by a more experienced or specialist colleague or the case can be co-worked.  That possibility will no longer exist in the fragmented structure.  The Risk Escalation documents states:

“The NPS will not provide formal advice to the CRCs but, in the course of discussion prior to the decision, there is likely to be consideration of additional activity which may assist in the management of the case as well as any changes which would lead to a further risk escalation referral.”

The existing Probation Service has a culture and tradition of practitioners and managers sharing practice, co-working and providing advice to each other.  As in the paragraph above, this is at risk of being lost and replaced by bureaucratic exchanges of information.  Provision of “formal advice” is likely to be seen as a chargeable professional service in the new structure and therefore subject to commercial rules.  This has never existed before in Probation and Napo believes it is serious enough to be fully examined by Parliament.  At the very least, such a radical change to working practices must be subject of a pilot in a discrete area. 

So, a very worrying scenario. In my view, the real 'wrong that needs righting' is the TR omnishambles and the Lib Dems can do that next Tuesday. There's still time to contact them.