Well at long last the BBC has got around to airing a decent programme about the probation TR omnishambles. Last night's Radio 4 File on Four 'Repeat Offenders' report by Danny Shaw was a pretty good run through of the main issues and I think many of us would agree that Chris Grayling admirably demonstrated his almost complete lack of understanding and knowledge of the subject.
It's pretty worrying to discover that a mature democratic state can throw up such a person with the power and authority to destroy a word-class public service and be both so ignorant of what is involved and the inevitable consequences of their actions. Some of his responses truly amazed me, such as all this bollocks about co-locating CRC with NPS and people "crossing the room to ask advice of more senior staff" or there being "no need to second guess prisoners before their release" or the "need to streamline the system and make it less bureaucratic."
The Liberal Democrats in particular need to listen to this programme and urgently examine their collective consciences because make no mistake, this is a complete disaster in the making and it will have public safety and political consequences.
What really worries me about this whole thing is that Chris Grayling, as an important Minister of the Crown, has a vast army of public servants at his disposal and one would assume access to the best advice and guidance tax-payers money can buy, and what is the result? A complete dog's breakfast and dangerous omnishambolic slow train crash. What does this say about our system of government and administration in this country? Is Chris Grayling such a none-too-bright bully and Conservative attack dog that public servants just tell him what he wants to hear, or does he just ignore their advice and shout orders at them?
Chris Grayling had absolutely no believable answers to the questions put to him, whether it was about the Peterborough prison experiment, payment by results, the failure of the London Diamond scheme, the frightening Risk Register - the list just goes on and we know from the recent revelations about how he treats Parliamentary Questions, he is utterly contemptuous of it all.
In short, a very good performance from Joanna Hughes, Vice Chair of Gloucestershire Napo and utterly heat-breaking to hear of such experienced officers such as her and Sally Lewis CEO of Avon and Somerset Probation Trust deciding to leave on ethical and moral grounds. Indeed we heard that at least 10 CEO's feel there is no place for them in the brave new world being created by TR and sadly each of us undoubtedly knows of other experienced colleagues who have either left, or will be doing in disgust and dismay. Isn't it extraordinary that the nation and our weasel politicians are allowing, indeed facilitating, such a purge of dedicated professional expertise and talent?
I've recently been accused of becoming too strident and shrill on this blog, but I defy any reasonable person to spare 40 minutes, listen to last nights programme and seriously say that this 'reform' of probation has any merit in it at all. It's repeated on Sunday at 5 o'clock or can be found here on i-player.
Oh and by the way, I guess Ian Lawrence's contribution ended up on the cutting-room floor?
Please read my comments on yesterday's blog - Grayling is far from ignorant - he is on a mission, with others to create a so called smaller state - he does not believe he needs to take any notice of our bleatings.
ReplyDeleteIf he is ignorant, it is in not realising how much the Queen's Peace depends on the nuances about the way the whole criminal justice system works - albeit never completely smoothly.
I presume he believes that the public servants left will make it work -which is why I charge ALL senior managers who have agreed to work for NPS, a CRC or for that matter any probation professional in NOMs as colluding.
The only way Cameron and Grayling will be stopped is if it becomes impossible due to a lack of personnel to do the work, or it is stopped in parliament, or the courts.
It will not be stopped by attempting to reason with the likes of Grayling or his advocates like Jeremy Wright, who seems not to realise that being a Government Minister is far more than acting as a very proficient advocate - which I am sure he is - to make a client's case for a jury or Judge/Bench of Magistrate's et al to determine.
As for those in Parliament who continue to vote for this, in order that they can sustain a Government - words fail me. It was indicative, that when former Gov Minister Sarah Teather appeared on the BBC radio 4s Any Questions programme a few months ago, she was not able to answer coherently about TR and after - in conversation with probation bods, who reported the conversation on the internet, - she admitted she had not been briefed about probation.
Truth is most parliamentarians and media do not have any real idea about probation and are not going to bother to find out.
I wonder how concerned the late Paul Goggins was about that - quoted yesterday by Lord Ramsbotham on the Today programme about his concern that the 'reforms' - destabilization - I call it - have still not been properly considered by parliament.
So I suppose, I am contradicting myself - Grayling is - obviously ignorant of how Criminal Justice and especially the probation service functions and how the work is vital to the functioning of society in the UK - but he does not think he needs to be better informed, because once we have the smaller state - society and the market will work out solutions - as is happening with food banks - for example!
He presumably has forgotten about how disturbing were the Poll Tax Tax riots, prison riots etc., or even thinks we have the forces in place to quell any riots.
Way back in my younger days - 1970s - the then Labour Government, which could not prevail on - the market - to produce enough jobs, was genuinely concerned about social stability if unemployment went as high as one million throughout the UK
Prior to that, apart from public employment such as with local and central government - there were very few 'job schemes' - just Remploy for the disabled and something for young people in particular places like parts of Liverpool, east London and I think somewhere in South Wales - called something like 'Community Industry' (Can someone please remind me or confirm this is right).
The Labour government introduced "Job Creation Schemes" for adults. and the "Work Experience Programme" for young adults. In probation in Liverpool (where I then was) many of us were very much involved in such schemes (I was).
TO BE CONTINUED
CONTINUED
DeleteThose schemes did not stop unemployment rising and that was a major part of the Conservative election campaign in 1979. But we found the nation did not riot - unemployment got to over THREE MILLION - there were not major riots - the way of counting was changed many times and disability payments were made in 1980s to massage the number of unemployed as the nature of British work changed significantly.
Somehow the nation either did not riot - in the way that is happening more recently in Greece and other places AND those with money kept it and increased it and became part of some sort of global community who do not belong anywhere as they move their money and influence about.
I believe, Grayling believes, his kind can survive that sort of turmoil AND more - we will all be better for it - leaner and fitter - as it were. The USA has much worse welfare benefits than the UK a prison population pro rata, bigger than ours and is still - by some analyses doing OK. And people pay to be on probation for offences that are in the UK 'spot fine' ones. We have a long way further down to go yet - as long as we can avoid destruction consequential on climate change!
The best thing I heard last night is Joanna whats her name from Chippenham is threatening to be a candidate in the general election - that is how we need to be organising - as well as to use every possible method to stop TR before it is brought in, because real people, like us and our neighbours will end up hurt. Especially we should not collude -
- I personally would not work for NPS or TR in the same way as I would not join the military, sell pornography or be involved in producing weapons. I recognise my good fortune, my mortgage is paid, I can live on my pension and support my wife (with her smaller pension) - obviously I need the Government - unlike I suspect has happened for some in Greece to be able to continue to pay all its pensions - which means UK Ltd needs to keep trading.
Andrew's correct about Tories wanting a Small State. Or at least they do until the floodplains flood.
Deletehttp://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26248088
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/18/chris-grayling-accused-manipulate-parliamentary-answers
DeleteMr Khan said he had received a letter from a "concerned official" complaining that Ministry of Justice (MoJ) responses to MPs' questions were vetted to ensure they were "favourable".
DeleteOfficials were infuriated by the impact of "the spin machine", he reported.
But the MoJ said its answers to MPs contained all the "necessary context".
The shadow justice secretary and Labour MP for Tooting said ministerial advisers seemed to be interfering with departmental responses.
He called for a review of recent answers to his parliamentary questions, arguing they had suffered a "noticeable deterioration" in timeliness and quality.
Mr Khan said: "It appears as if I am being deliberately denied information I am entitled to.
"The only explanation is that Chris Grayling wants to hide how badly he is doing as justice secretary."
He continued: "If my answers are being manipulated for party political purposes, the public are denied the true facts. This is bad for democracy and bad for the British public."
MoJ officials preparing answers to parliamentary questions have been told to pay "particular interest" to questions in 48 areas, including prisoners in police cells, first-class rail travel, deaths in custody and ministers' personal matters, the whistleblower has reportedly claimed.
Mr Khan has written to MoJ permanent secretary Ursula Brennan to demand an investigation into the allegations made by the whistleblower and has accused Mr Grayling of politicising the department.
He said some parliamentary answers go unanswered, others receive holding answers which are not subsequently followed up.
Some answers did not address the original question, he added.
But an MoJ spokeswoman said: "Special advisers are employed to provide advice and assistance to ministers across a wide range of areas, as required and in line with the code of conduct for special advisers.
"The MoJ receives a high volume of parliamentary questions on a wide range of subjects.
"These vary in complexity, and can sometimes involve compiling detailed statistical information. We are committed to answering PQs in a way that provides the necessary context for members."
As only about 500 appealed their assignment, which the MoJ gleefully reports is about 3% of the workforce, does this mean that 97% were content with their assignment? That's how it appears to the general public. And I expect the MoJ will refer endlessly to these figures when told staff were unhappy about being spilt. I imagine the vast majority, if not all the appeals, were against assignments into CRCs, which implicity shows there is a first and second division in the new ball game. And the general secretary of Napo cannot get a word in edgeways, no doubt he is working on 'The strategy to derail TR'. We need Eddie the Eagle!
ReplyDeleteMy only issue is that my Trust, Norfolk and Suffolk, reported over 100 grievances, including 60+ formal grievances and 40+ letters accompanying coerced expressions of interest (i.e. being forced to choose without access to important information pertaining to the consequences of those EOIs). So my little Trust produced 20% of the grievances nationally? Difficult to believe.
DeleteSuspect the MoJ will have focused on category of complaint with lowest numbers ie appeals rather than grievances ?
DeleteToday's Guardian doesn't give Mr Grayling a positive spin http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/19/chris-grayling-criminal-justice-system-justice-prisons-probation
ReplyDeleteLike the archetypical school bully, Chris Grayling walks around the playground deliberately bumping into people in the hope of picking a fight.
DeleteThe justice secretary's favourite target is Strasbourg. He hates the human rights court's intellectual rigour, its humanity and above all its reasonableness. He can also rely on his Daily Mail gang to pitch in with the odd punch. His latest fight over whole-life tariffs has been thwarted by neat finessing on the part of the court of appeal. This is not a cause for celebration. There will be future skirmishes which will be relished in the runup to the general election next year. Any sort of Europe-bashing equals votes.
Other victims of bullying have not fared as well. The probation service had a good kicking long before Grayling came on the scene. The National Offender Management Service, designed to bring prisons and probation closer together for the benefit of prisoners and communities, fell foul of reorganisational chaos. Grayling then turned a good kicking into a thorough pummelling. In Tuesday's BBC Radio 4 File on 4 programme, Danny Shaw exposed the secretary of state's attitude to the small matter of evidence: he either doesn't see it or fails to recognise it.
Grayling sees the project at HMP Peterborough – run by Sodexo Justice Services, it is the first purpose-built prison to house men and women together in the UK – as a blueprint for the future. The rest of the world sees it as a dodgy experiment. Probation officers are leaving in their droves. They will be replaced by inexperienced "operatives" of community rehabilitation companies on low wages and zero-hours contracts, acting as scapegoats for the future offending of "clients". Grayling is confident that there are people out in the charitable sector who know more than experienced probation officers with social work degrees. Of course there are some good people out there, but they will not fill the gap left by probation or the extra workload of the 50,000 short-term prisoners brought into the new contracts.
On Tuesday iHMP Pentonville was pilloried by the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick. That followed criticism of Oakwood, Thameside, Feltham, Brixton – the list goes on. The belief that these issues can be solved by prisoners having fewer privileges, wearing uniforms and not smoking is foolhardy at best. The logic seems to be that if prisons such as Pentonville have no future, we can build Titan jails across the country; "efficient" mass incarceration is just around the corner. And it will be needed, as the prison population continues to increase against the backdrop of politicians vying to out-tough each other on crime. Sadly none of these parliamentarians will be around to pick up the pieces; reshuffles and ambition will see to that.
Grandiose schemes based on dogma rather than logic envelop the criminal justice system. Existing laws are "interpreted" rather than obeyed. New laws are passed on everything from smoking in cars with children to being a "nuisance". It is all designed to make us feel warm and comfortable, and reassure us that something is being done.
There is a lot that actually could be done but stays in the criminal justice long grass. We could reduce the numbers of women in prison, treat them more humanely and save millions by implementing the Corston report recommendations. We could divert the mentally ill away from prison by following the Bradley report. We could stop locking us those with health problems, by adopting better drug laws. A truly independent report into the deaths of young people we incarcerate is essential. We might also want to learn some lessons form the abuse scandal that is Medomsley detention centre. But such actions don't win votes – or line the pockets of the private sector.
My personal view on the relatively small number of appeals is related to the emotional, physical and personal exhaustion felt by many. Lets not forget how demanding this last 6-12 months have been, and I find myself busier than I have ever been. I get the impression that colleagues who expected to go to CRC's have lost the desire and energy to fight, especially as they do not know what they are fighting against. I am sure if the future were more clear, people would become more militant about it. I suspect when the trialing period kicks in, things will become very stark and very grim, with staff floundering as they try to retain Probation values,while working alongside and for organisations who, despite what they say, as not driven by the desire to make positive social and individual change. What then?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew, Mr Grayling is not a buffoon, but he is a callous, egotistic, self serving member of an upper class, who couldn't be less interested in the lives and times of real people.
A good point well made. There does appear to be a large amount of uncertainty, this likely contributing to the decrease in staff moral. That said, I cannot see moral improving for the very reasons so eloquently stated above. My own values and morals would be comprimised to the extent where I would possibly refuse 'orders' if the sole purpose of my employers was profit over people. There will likely be an exodus of staff, indeed this appears to be the case with nearly one dozen Chief Officers of various trusts, and with this is years of experience which can never be replaced. However, I'm sure there is any amount of unqualified people who will do my (and your) job for less money.
DeleteUnfortunately, if you pay peanuts.......
I think you've hit the nail on the head 30 years in. What I am currently witnessing would have been unthinkable 12 months ago. I've made my decision to go and I've no doubt many practitioners will leave over next 12-24 months from both the CRC's & the NPS. It's the coming preventable SFO's that will ensure an exodus of knowledge and experience.
DeleteI have been assigned to NPS and did TR training last week. Found out that I will be a report and form completing battery hen, I feel sorry for my colleagues who are in the same room as me as they will be smelling a lot of lavender!
DeleteCouldn't agree more about Grayling, he is a disgrace and is responsible for this whole mess, However the whole government must take blame and especially the lib dems who so easily abandoned their social justice agenda for power. Someone must ask questions about Grayling as a former BBC employee - is this why no-one on the BBC ever challenges him? I am going to write to the trustees now to ask them.
ReplyDeleteI think Danny Shaw did a good job with the whole programme and CG was exposed. He won't have liked the tx version. I also believe the programme was more powerful without Ian Lawrence's voice - it led credibility to the argument and negated naysayers pointing to whiney union bosses to try to discredit the issue.
DeleteThe relatively limited number of appeals is surely reflective of the fact that trusts have set very restrictive criteria for the lodging of an appeal. As I understand it individuals are largely required to demonstrate that their trust have not applied the sifting criteria appropriately, wherein it is in fact likely to be the sifting criteria itself that is problematic. It would not appear to be possible to appeal against the notionally correct application of what is in itself a flawed process. However, isn't the whole question of appeals something of a red herring? The issue surely is the split full stop, not how the split is achieved. Any though to the contrary rather runs the risk of reinforcing the developing notion that CRC=Bad, NPS = (somehow) Good....
ReplyDeleteWhen people who have got the bad choice appeal they get NPS and room is made for them. I wonder if this is why a particular trust suddenly needs vacancies for CRC.
Deletehttp://www.lincolnshireprobationtrust.org.uk/Working+In+Probation/Current+Vacancies
The very point I was going to make.I have been auto assigned to a CRC against my wishes and have no grounds for a grievance against my Trust because they did as they were told.Would be better to ask how many staff are happy with what has happened
ReplyDeleteJim, I know you read all the postings and with various commitments I don't get chance to read this til late at night, but i wanted to share some nuggets that I have been mining over several days.
ReplyDeleteYou have seen the runners and riders of the competition but what is not reported is the number that are pulling out of the process. There is evidence that the initial fanfare that there is a good group of bidders , some may have said "best in class"(!!) bidding for each CPA is begining to dwindle.
You have heard of the Hampshire mutual stepping out, but there are some of the big boys stepping back from interest in CPA's.
To name them would undoubtedly compromise the source but you have heard that there is an approach from MoJ to get more companies to have another look at what they wish to bid for - but large nationals , multinationals and consortia are having second thoughts about bidding.
We will not see for certain because of competition processes but the word is that 4/5 big companies will mop up the whole lot, and the mutuals .....bid candy !!
Sorry to say some staff mutuals are beaten before they even place pen on paper.
The Danny Shaw report suggested that the MoJ procurement was going to do an excellent job, they have , however, not gone down well with prospective bidders. The TOM is still incomplete, staff unrest continues,setting up the training for new processes is shockingly inadequate, key staff from Trusts are leaving, some Trust are having to recruit or use agency staff which all means the bidders are becoming increasingly concerned on what will be "for sale".
The drip , drip , drip of reputational damaging news is also taking its toll, and the realisation from some bidders that they just do not have a capacity to try and take on the CPA will only add to this.
Which leaves those larger organisations with financial resources (perhaps acquired from previous workfare-type payments?) who have funded teams of professional bidders & employed staff from within CJS to run their teams. This might bring into question the validity of the £500K or so given to staff mutuals to access consultancies? Another distraction technique? Is Chris Grayling really Derren Brown?
DeleteSodexo, a4e, interserve, geo group, trc? Yippee.
DeleteA4E and the JC+ played a blinder this week - they've sanctioned one of my caseload's money for 2 weeks because he failed to attend an appointment next week. Having made a 'rapid reclaim' ( non sequitur) because his family had no money, he's deemed to have accepted he missed next week's appointment so has lost his right to appeal the sanction. As someone rightly posted previously, head-desk, head-desk, head-desk, etc. Was it Collateral where crimes were solved before they happened?
I'm sorry this does not make sense to me or a former JCP employee - a rapid reclaim only happens when a claim is closed not sanctioned. A little more info please!
DeleteMr Grayling is the sole architect of the destruction of the probation service and as we are a service who attempts to get offenders (back to clients soon in the CRC nas OMs to become 'Therapists') to accept resposibility for their actions we need to apportion blame fairly and squarely at his door when the service fails......it's his fault, no-one elses.......and if by some magic he manages to reduce reoffending rates and reduce costs and deals with an extra 50,000 under 12 month offenders every year, then we'll accept he was right all along.......long way to go before that methinks......
ReplyDelete