It has been said many times on this blog that part of our problem in trying to stop this whole TR omnishambles - sorry Jackart but it is a bloody omnishambles - has been the conspicuous absence of any Chief to come out publicly and say it as it is. Even Napo has been coy about playing the risk card for some reason or other, but here we have Dr Wendy Fitzgibbon, senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University, spelling it out clearly on the Justice Gap website:-
By ending government contracts with public sector probation trusts, the Ministry of Justice has stated that 88% of the rehabilitation services would be privately/voluntarily run leaving a mere 12% of high risk offenders in the hands of the public probation service. It has also been revealed that the new rehabilitation and supervision contracts will go for an estimated £5bn to £20bn over the next 10 years.
“I think the rump, the remaining 12% of probation services that is going to be kept into the public sector, is going to be given the task for all high-risk offenders writing all the court reports and dealing with all the breaches of any lower or middle risk offenders who have breached their conditions of their parole or probation requirements – and to me that is an impossible job for such a small, residual public service,” says Dr Fitzgibbon.
The academic was also concerned that the community rehabilitation companies would be put out to tender and larger multinational companies, notably G4S and Serco, wouldn’t be able to manage changeable and dynamic risk levels. “Dano Sonnex was seen as a medium risk offender and he went on to commit two horrendous murders,” she points out.
Dr Fitzgibbon explains that if that can occur under public scrutiny with very highly qualified staff, then there could be “a lot more Sonnexs” that are missed resulting in dangers in public protection. Concerns have also been raised over new reforms in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to halt the automatic parole of child rapists and terrorists. These reforms were unveiled last Wednesday by the Justice Secretary in a bid to revamp sentencing and to ensure that the courts deliver efficiency for the taxpayer. This bill will see the end of automatic half-way point release for criminals convicted of rape or attempted rape of a child, or serious terrorism offences, and no longer automatically releasing offenders who receive the tough Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS) two-thirds of the way through their custodial term.
“The public expects that serious and repeat criminals should be punished appropriately, and that those who are jailed should have to earn the right to be released early from prison. It is only right that those offenders who break the law and try to avoid serving the entirety of their sentence by going on the run face additional punishment when they are caught.”Chris Grayling
“I think a lot of the things the Ministry of Justice is doing are very much media-led – and obviously that involves a moral panic element – as well as quite a punitive element,” Dr Fitzgibbon said.
“This government is very punitive – not just towards known offenders but also towards anybody that is seen as a member of the underclass or feral classes – somebody that is claiming benefits or anybody that is not responsible.” Wendy Fitzgibbon
The academic argued that the MoJ wanted to “interfere with the parole process and put down stringent requirement” and that was “not helpful because the parole process is a thorough one and we have experienced parole panel members who make very skilled and in depth judgements on who should be given parole”. “They’re not automatically given parole on the first or second hearing and those judgements are informed by reports from the prisons and the probation service and other interested people like the victims. I feel that the system is very robust and I don’t think that the MoJ should be stipulating a more tick box approach to it.”
I would say that Napo has constantly banged the drum about risks to public safety presented by TR – numerous briefings and model letters invariably emphasise and give prominence to risk concerns: http://www.napo.org.uk/about/probationunderthreat.cfm
ReplyDeleteHowever the same cannot be said of those in positions of leadership. Sometimes an individual stepping forward and speaking from a background of leadership, can grab media attention, can really make people think: if he/she is saying this then perhaps the government is getting it all wrong. The public mood can often be jaundiced towards what unions say, but they will listen to a voice or voices that are not seen to be grinding axes. Yet there has been nobody stepping forward.
There was a notorious murder in New York in 1964. Kitty Genovese was minutes from her home when she was attacked and stabbed. Her screams were heard by numerous neighbours – but no one went to her aid. The incident led to a lot of soul searching and, later, social psychological research. It gave rise to terms like 'bystander apathy' and 'diffusion of responsibility'. Some neighbours did not do anything and others assumed that someone else would do something. No one took responsibility.
I've seen little sign of 'bystander apathy' among Probation Chiefs. The majority seem to have been cheerleaders for TR, tumbling over themselves in the race to suck up to the minister and secure their own position. You have to question the ethics and suitability for leadership of individuals prepared, indeed eager to sacrifice the future of thousands of staff and many thousands more clients and victims on the basis of their own self interest
DeleteAside from the Cains and Quislings you would still think there is someone somewhere in a leadership position who wants to speak the truth. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that they come along a couple of years down the line and say how dreadful it was to wrestle with their personal agonies during the crisis. On the positive side, at least you know where you stand with the sycophants.
DeletePerhaps a suitable function for a proper probation professional association would be to approve and acclaim those put in leadership positions of probation agency employers, rather as is beginning to happen with the parliamentary select committees of some public service positions.
DeleteObviously such an 'approval' would not prevent an employer appointing whoever they choose but it would be a good way a regulatory authority could express itself on the overall integrity and attitudes of those who lead the profession. Perhaps the Napo director on the Probation Institute will seek to have such a policy introduced?
Regarding Wendy Fitzgibbon's piece, I agree with the sentiments, but have yet to assimilate how it will work with the new parole situation if the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2014 is implemented as it is now drafted (that is without being amended) and it is helpful her drawing our attentions to that because that is a matter we probably should be commenting on to our Members of Parliament in both the Houses of Commons and Lords.
However, her analysis as I understood it, seems to suggest that what is driving the TR policy is primarily a concern for the way criminal justice system functions in England and Wales, whereas I now believe that is secondary to the very strong desire to have "a smaller State" - as the shorthand has it for less public services in general and those that remain delivered by private organisations on behalf of the State rather than the state directly.
We are already a long way down that sad road, and seemingly numbers of large charities have lost their control of their own work by becoming almost totally dependent on government revenue funding, to the extent that they are almost doing the work of the State.
Andrew Hatton
Good piece form Wendy Fitzgibbon, but it's worse than that - NPS staff will also be writing all parole reports, attending all oral hearings, possibly managing all custodial sentence plans, managing all Mappa cases, even those deemed L1, but who fit the criteria by way of having been given a custodial period within a Suspended Sentence of more than 52 weeks and convicted of any violent offence - if you go by the list in Oasys - that includes all Public Order Offences, and a great deal more, which normally would not have reached the dizzy heights of the 'critical few'.
ReplyDeleteThat...................... and the fact that no pay rise in Feb pay - has put me in a right bad mood, for the rest of the day!
May I say - great suggestion from Andrew to put up an Independent candidate -representing Public Services in the next general election. I am sorely tempted and I did get a B in A' level Government and Politics!!!!!!!
Dear 30 years in - Please test out whether you can raise the nomination costs - £500 and get the number of nominees needed to sign the nomination paper - who have to be electors in the chosen constituency - it is just ten.
DeleteBest wishes with that who else is interested and for what constituency?
http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/
If a retired hospital doctor can be successful as Richard Taylor was, (he is going again next time)
http://www.healthconcern.org.uk/Dr.Taylor.htm
why should not also a former probation officer - I presume - one cannot be employed as a probation officer whilst an MP.
There is currently one, at least already - Mike Wood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Wood_%28politician%29
And still in the House of Lords is former SPO from London - Lord Soley: -
http://commentisfree.theguardian.com/clive_soley/profile.html
Then going back there was also the notorious John Stonehouse " a clerical position in the probation service" and who ended up with a prison sentence before becoming an author: -
http://www.iliketrains.co.uk/other/timeline/essay5.html?height=500&width=500
I expect there are others?
Andrew Hatton
PS - AND FINALLY - Stonehouse still took an interest in Probation as an MP - once asking a question of a then junior member of government who later became more remembered for what Private Eye termed 'Ugandan discussions'!
I missed off the Stonehouse Link mentioned before: -
Deletehttp://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1958-02-18a.1026.0
I have some confusion with the detail of the quoted piece. Can someone assist or clarify? In one paragraph there's reference to 12% of high risk offenders, which later becomes 12% of probation resources.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Hi. I think they mean 100% of high risk offenders which they are thinking will equate to 12% of the people currently on probation.
DeleteNapo should organise a media friendly event with high ranking supportive politicians, religious leaders, academics, service user groups, victim support groups, PCCs, police federation, prison officer association in a massive show of opposition to the whole principle of TR and absolutely high light the very real dangers to public safety. These supporters are out there being them together
ReplyDeleteI actually feel more sorry for crc colleagues. As most areas have allocated over 60% of probation officers to nps. Crc staff may not end up doing reports etc but they will have huge caseloads and, despite what ministers may thing, an awful lot of very risky people. Sonnex is a good comparison as are most sfo's. Although many of them may have fallen under mappa. However most domestic abuse and child concern cases don't. How many women are seriously assaulted and die each year? That is seriously risky work.
ReplyDeleteI got NPS and im wundering what I have let myself in for. I now know what they say when they say b careful what you wish for. Dont know how I will cope with workload meanwhile CRC colleagujujues will be triddling their fingers. Not sure y people tink CRC will get lots of cases.
ReplyDeleteBecause crc will hold over 70% of the probation caseload with about 40% of probation officers
ReplyDeleteNot convinced CRC will hold over 70% of the caseload. Told that most violent offences will go to NPS. Sex offenders obviously NPS. With the allocation tool that NPS staff will be using got a feeling majority will be going way of NPS, and I will be overloaded as well as the numerous reports etc I will be writing
DeleteNPS cases = High Risk, MAPPA, High profile. That's it. As majority of 'interventions' will be purchased from CRCs NPS officers will spend the greater part of their time updating risk documentation, completing cold reports, and reviewing risk assessment, recall and breach paperwork completed by CRC staff.
Deletehttp://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/11010233.Privatising_probation_service_poses_no_risk__says_minister/
ReplyDeleteIf he knew anything about Probation work, he'd know that there's no such thing as "no risk".
DeleteBut he doesn't, obviously.
JUSTICE Secretary Chris Grayling defended claims that privatising part of the probation service would put offenders and victims at risk when he visited Swindon yesterday.
DeleteMr Grayling visited Wiltshire Probation Trust to meet staff to discuss the controversial changes to the probation system, which will see 70 per cent of the existing public sector probation service become 21 community rehabilitation companies to be run under government contracts by private bidders.
Only 30 per cent of offenders who are most at risk of serious re-offending will continue to be seen by the remaining centrally-run public sector arm of the service after 35 local probation trusts are closed down.
Mr Grayling said: “The main reason for the change is that we have about 50,000 people a year who get prison sentences of less than 12 months who are not required to see probation after they leave, and 60 per cent of them go on to re-offend.The changes are about creating a more efficient, stream-lined service.”
But one of the main concerns raised by members of the National Association of Probation Officers union (Napo), is that offenders moving from a medium to a high risk category will have to move across different organisations to see a probation worker, and cost-cutting could see high risk offenders left on the street.
Albertine Davies, Napo’s secretary in Swindon, said: “It is a matter of life or death. We supervise the most dangerous people in our community. Corners will be taken if people are trying to boost their profit margins for their share holders, which will mean more crime, more victims and ultimately some of these will die.
“Many offenders need routine and many probation officers develop relationships with offenders they see. This will be lost if they have to switch between agencies.
“They’re not even going to pilot it. And they’re planning to roll it out nationally with no evidence that it will work, and with a significant amount of evidence that risk to the public will be increased.”
Despite admitting to having no hands-on experience of the probation service, Mr Grayling reassured the public that the tender process will not be a matter of cost-cutting, and that public sector workers would be located within the same office as workers in the private service.
He said: “This is not a tender process based on finances, it’s a process to find the companies who can use their innovative skills to provide the best quality service in the long term.
“Public sector workers will be working across the office from their colleagues working with medium and low risk offenders. They will be co-located in the same place. Nobody will be left unsupervised.”
Napo is asking the public to sign an online petition. Go to www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ stop-risking-public-safety.
Could someone from Whiltshire just tell me why Grayling escaped with his life?
DeleteI remain perpetually amazed that he remains unmurdered!
What I continue NOT to understand is why the man talks about innovation yet the potential CRC's are been told to listen to local stakeholders about the delivery of partnership work (especiallly) should not change!!!!
DeleteWhat is also obvious where I work is that there are too many CRC cases held by PO's now for the amount of PO's in CRC once the split occurs. Which means OMPSO's will get left with CP and DVD/DA cases to manage. Whilst the OMPSO's in my team are an incredible bunch with great report writing and assessment skills, this Is not what they signed up for or want and if an SFO occurs you can bet they will be the ones in the firing line with mgmt washing their hands and denying they knew this was happening. So as an SPO will have to either choose to give 70 cases to qualified PO who will understandably end up off with stress or spread the work and put staff in awful situation managing cases without the training yo do so. Although of course it will be fine because they are still only medium risk cases...... Despite the DV,RC,CP flags.
ReplyDeleteSome soon-to-be-late Trusts are looking at training PSOs to manage Tier 3 (non-MAPPA) CRC cases. P45s for the CRC POs then?
ReplyDeleteWhat do u mean train them. PSOs already do in my trust! I am wondering what roles of SPOs will be in CRC?
DeletePSOs in my trust manage MAPPA L1 Tier 3 cases!
DeleteLook to Epic for the Lincs etc CRC advert for PSO staff. I think that tells its own story.
DeleteWhat an utter shambles this is turning in to!
ReplyDeleteI see overworked staff in NPS, rather than overworked staff in CRC.
DeleteI see redundancy for POs in CRCs and stress and overwork for NPS POs. If you look at TOM2 you have heart failure if you have been selected for NPS.
DeleteNo matter where you are, this whole thing is going to have a MASSIVE negatuve imoact on the way you work, what you do, who you do it for and why you do it. However, it is down to us to ensure it all works.
DeleteJust saying, that's all :)
"What an utter shambles" -
DeleteIs an utter shambles more or less shambolic than an omnishambles?
My understanding is that omnishambles covers all bases, such that all aspects are shambolic but without definition of the degree to which they are shambolic, whereas utter shambles is a means of defining how shambolic it has become. So utter shambles would be more shambolic, but omnishambles is more widespread.
DeleteFor the record, I do realise I ought to leave my room more often and talk to other people occasionally. Its just very hard to do.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/civil-service-job-cuts-more-3143284
ReplyDeleteMore than a million public sector jobs will be axed by 2019 as the Government carries out the biggest cull of civil servants in history, analysts have warned.
DeleteThe Institute for Fiscal Studies said the cuts would “dramatically change the nature of the UK labour market”.
The public sector employs 20% of the workforce, but that would fall to 15% if the 1.1 million job cuts went ahead as planned.
In the report, the IFS said the cull was three times larger than John Major’s public service cuts in the 90s.
And with health and education protected, the rest of the public sector areas would have to shrink by 40%.
The cuts would hit women hardest as they made up two-thirds of the public sector workforce.
The IFS said schools and the NHS may be forced to take their share of the job cuts.
IFS Research Economist Jonathan Cribb said: “The scale of the reductions over the next few years looks challenging.”
He added: The public sector workforce grew by over 600,000 over the 2000s.
“Even so the scale of the reductions expected over the next few years looks challenging.
“If delivered, the 1.1 million drop in general government employment forecast by the OBR between 2010–11 and 2018–19 would be almost three times larger than the previous drop during the early 1990s.
“The workforce is a useful prism through which to look at the effects of cutting total spending whilst protecting the NHS and schools budgets from cuts.
"With limited falls in the health and education workforces the number of public sector workers in other areas could fall by 30-40% over the next five years.”
https://twitter.com/IlawrenceL/status/434364089821708288
ReplyDelete#@ilawrencel Bidders for TR now invited to reappraise their preferences for CRC contracts! Pity that staff can't do the same post-assignment
Can some explain what this means please. Thanks
There are not enough bidders for each CRC, some like London have only 3 privateers, others have maybe 9 or 10 "interested" privateers...but the worry is when they have heard what a shambles(omni) these competitions are , they might pull out and leave only 1 or 2 privateers in the area. So by asking the privateers if the want a second look at the "goods"there might be a better chance of a better competition. This is especially pertinent to the mutuals who might get giddy and have a go at the neighboring patch where there is no mutual ( Northumbria, South Yorks).
DeleteYes as Jim pointed out the other day. We are the big experiment if we go quietly god help all other sectors of the welfare state. Remember, the government will look after the pension problem leaving health and social welfare open to the wolves in the private sector. They are all in it together, bastards.
ReplyDeleteA touch off topic so apologies...
ReplyDeleteFurther to my banishment from NAPO discussion forums I find the NAPO Chair / Probation Institute Director Tom Rendon has now blocked me on Twitter for trying to ask him some questions about the Probation Institute . I discovered I was blocked when I was trying to ask him a further question last night having happened upon the fact that the Probation institute - which he said only yesterday is 'not a fig leaf for privatisation' - is actually written into the MoJs original Target Operating Model (TOM) for TR as a unifying force that will help to ensure the new system works. I've previously mentioned how this purpose for the new body is detailed in the Institute prospectus as a 'Key aim', but I'm still taken aback to see that it's long since been integral to the MoJs plans - yet our union are helping to set it up and run it! in the updated version of the MoJs TOM the wording is in fact identical to that used in the 'key aims section' of the institute prospectus... Apologies if everyone already knew this, as the model is of course open to everyone to peruse at their leisure.
Similarly I was also rather surprised in considering the TOM to find that the CRCs and their successors will, unlike most other organisations I can think of working with vulnerable people, NOT be exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. It's clear in the TOM that, unlike in the present Probation Service, new applicants to the CRCs will not have to disclose spent convictions. With this in mind today's ostensibly positive change in the Rehabilitation of Offenders act, legislated for some time ago but only now to be introduced, suddenly looks more like a clumsy attempt to bolster the fantasy that under privatisation there can be be an 'old lag' Mentor to meet each ex offender at the prison gate - an attempt to make available a wider body of former offenders by doing away with all that messy looking at their past behaviour business..... Though I suppose it *could* be a coincidence that the change has been introduced now... could it?
Original TOM: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/rehab-prog/competition/target-operating-model.pdf
TOM 2: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/rehab-prog/competition/target-operating-model-2.pdf
Simon Garden
Having just had a brief read of the tom2 paper I can't see how the RoOAct requirement has been omitted. I'm not pro-TR, but it seems that the disclosure of spent offences is still there, just that discretion about what to do with that knowledge is allowed. I'm someone who might be termed poacher-turned-gamekeeper, much to some (but not many) of my colleagues' disgust (when they find out from sources unknown). I believe my clients have generally benefitted from my experiences, and often they recognise the genuineness of my experience and take heart. I have also seen the damage caused by enthusiastic convertees who haven't resolved their own issues and end up in convoluted and dangerous, even collusive, scenarios.
DeletePerhaps I am not reading the tom2 correctly?
Look at p.54, sec 6.8, 'Staff security and vetting'. It states 'CRC staff who ... will have one-to-one contact with offenders and access to offender records will require a level of vetting expected of not-directly- employed workers equivalent to the government baseline personnel security standard. This comprises identity checks, right to work checks, employment references and checks for UNSPENT (my emphasis) criminal convictions' . The implication is that 'spent' convictions will not need to be disclosed.
DeleteI don't doubt there are a great many people with a past history of offending who can contribute a great deal to working to help other ex offenders and in that the community generally. However,it is for good reason, primarily the protection of the people being worked with, that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) lists exceptions from the act in sensitive areas such as work with children and vulnerable adults and work in law enforcement and the legal system. I think it would surely be best for all parties to have all the relevant facts clear, and it's genuinely startling to see that this widely applied safeguard is to be waved for the CRCs - and better still waved not out of genuine interest in helping former offenders but in an effort to bolster the privatisation plan
Simon
Correct me if I have misunderstood you, but are you suggesting that rehabilitated ex-offender should be excluded from working in either the CRCs or NPS? The probation service has never been off limits for ex-offenders with spent convictions and there are quite a few current probation officers with spent convictions.
DeleteNO, not suggesting exclusion at all - BUT present arrangements are that our work is EXCLUDED from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and all offences, spent or otherwise, must be disclosed. This is on the basis that evidence re any past problem behaviour - and , where relevant, what work may have been taken to address the behaviour and possibly the thinking behind it - needs to be considered because we work with a potentially very vulnerable client group. The real issue i'm raising is that this is apparently no longer to be the case in the CRC - but not out of any positive motive, but largely, it would seem, in an effort to bolster the Privatisation plan. I don't know, but i'd be prepared to be that the NPS is still excluded from the act...
DeleteJust to be clear, there are two related things going on here:
Delete1. It appears from the TOM that despite Probation Posts having been exempt from the Rehabilitation of offenders act 1974 since the act was introduced people recruited to work or volunteer with the CRCs will - unlike all staff presently employed by Probation - NOT be required to disclose 'Spent' convictions.
2. Changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act dramatically reducing the period for which all offences attracting a sanction below a custodial sentence of four years remain unspent are now being introduced - coincidentally? - just as the CRCS are being introduced...
To illustrate the point: Under current arrangements someone applying for a job with probation would have to disclose if they had EVER committed an offence that attracted a sentence of supervision in the community. Under the new arrangements for the CRCs, and with the changes now being introduced to the ROA someone applying for a job - or to volunteer - with the CRCs will be entitled to conceal the fact that they have previously committed such an offence just ONE YEAR after the sentence has expired... I may be wrong but this feels potentially problematic to me...
Simon Garden
Interestingly it very much remains the case that 'Probation Officer' is listed as exempt from the ROA. Could this mean that staff hired by the CRCs , who it seems are to be covered by the act, are somehow not considered to be Probation Officers?
DeleteSimon
I think it is good that these issues are being highlighted - hopefully the MOJ bods are paying serious attention?
DeleteI suspect the truth of the matter is that very few in MOJ or parliament - let alone the media and possibly some within probation understand the difference between an 'offender manger', probation officer, or probation services officer or social worker - remembering that a modern social worker qualification entitles a person to be employed as a probation officer BUT - very wrongly - a modern probation officer qualification does not entitle a person to be employed as a social worker.
Such an issue might be well directed at a Government Minister in both the Ministry of Justice and The Education Department
Wendy Fitzgibbon seems muddled to me. She seems to confuse % of cases with the % of staff. I think that the actual NPS split is nearer an overall average of NPS 47% and CRC 53% of staff. I have no idea if that is the right proportion, but on the face of it that seems to leave NPS with small caseloads of high risk cases (plus all the reports to write) and very high caseloads for CRCs. But then under the new RAR the CRC probably won't be doing much by way of accredited programmes, so that will free up quite a bit of time. I think the stronger argument is around the ability to keep up with dynamic risk when the caseloads are high. This is not really much to do with public versus private, more a case of how skilled will the staff be at keeping tabs on a lot of offenders.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Wendy's interview some time ago, but she doesn't help her cause by talking of Serco and G4S not being able to cope with changing risk, when we all know that they withdrew from the TR competition before Christmas.
Big thanks to Simon for his suggested reading....TOM, just waded through it, not sure if I want a lie down or a whisky.......actually, no contest...now do I have any ice cubes?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Andrew, I live in Mike Woods constituency, and have had an ongoing correspondence with him regarding this shite for a long time now, so I won't be standing, but will support anyone else with a mind to do so; practically and financially.....any takers? Oh and my A level in Gov't and Politics dates back to 1976, so may not be that useful.
Did you get a mention in the TR debate '30 years in"??
Delete