Subject: Jonathan Aitken and the privatisation of the Probation Service
The 'On Probation' blog www.probationmatters.blogspot.co.uk continues to attract in excess of 3,000 hits daily and is rapidly becoming the platform for disgruntled probation staff to vent their anger at Justice Secretary Chris Grayling's plans to privatise the Probation Service.
May 31st sees all Probation Trusts abolished, to be largely replaced with a rag bag of private companies and inexperienced charitable bodies who will have to increasingly rely on an army of 'old lags' in order to undertake the supervision of offenders in a cost-cutting exercise.
It is interesting to note that disgraced former Tory Minister Jonathan Aitken in a recent report written for the right-wing think tank 'Centre for Social Justice' attempts to argue the case for 'mentoring' or probation on the cheap, but can only offer hope and not action.
Many probation staff are becoming increasingly alarmed at the potential risks involved in this completely untested so-called 'Rehabilitation Revolution', but having been effectively 'gagged' by the Ministry of Justice, can only speak out anonymously. An exception and regular contributor to the blog is Joanna Hughes, an experienced Probation Officer with 17 years service under her belt.
Joanna is so outraged at the destruction of a world class and Gold Award winning public service that she has taken the extreme step of resigning her post from 1st June in protest and is willing to explain publicly her reasons and particularly the risks to the public that will invariably flow from the government's privatisation plans.
Joanna is available for interview and can be contacted here: joanna840@googlemail.com 07854 668050
Jim Brown can be contacted in relation to 'On Probation Blog' here: jimbrown51@virginmedia.com
Immediate release - no embargo
ENDS
Brilliant! Thank you both....
ReplyDeleteHow many agreed can we get.....take note Mr & Mrs Press persons
ReplyDeleteThank you Joanna and Jim!
ReplyDeleteI am writing to Mr Aitken to explain my role as a PO, how I work and my concerns about the destruction of such a worthy profession, if you wish to do so too here are his details:
ReplyDeletejonathanaitken@jwpaitken.co.uk
Brilliant Jim.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Aitken, and the biased think tank he writes for, are wrong to think prison 'mentors' alone can tackle reoffending (or take on the work of probation CRC's). It is these types of reports which are receiving significant media coverage, that should see Napo (and the Probation Institute for that matter), quickly responding to publicly defend probation in the said media, and remind both government and the public that mentors can not and should not replace the work of a skilled, highly trained and professional probation service workforce. Alas Napo HQ are on leave this week and once again fail probation, it's Press officer silent as usual, it's social media accounts non-responsive, and the linked PI surely could not oppose its Tory bosses.
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=634
Can I just say that I think your blog and its contents are brilliant! I am a member of Prisoners Families Voices and my partner is currently on probation. He has a wonderful probation officer who so wants to help him but does not have the time to do it. Both me and my partner have a lot of respect for his probation officer and it is such a shame that he is being held back.
ReplyDeleteChapeau, M.Brown et Mme.Hughes. Bon chance!!
ReplyDeleteJ&J - has a ring of truth and integrity to it - perhaps the Chair (TR) and CS (IL) of Napo should employ them, as press officers?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely outstanding. The highest respect to you both.
ReplyDeleteAnarchist PO
http://www.schnews.org.uk/stories/The-Great-Probation-Sell-Off/
ReplyDeleteThere is such an anti-probation tone to Aitken's report it beggars belief, BUT it is professional, well constructed, easily absorbed, referenced, endorsed - and very much part of the TR agenda. Some flavours of the pro-TR spin from within Mr Aitken's document (and some observations of my own):
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 - "The Probation Service, despite its historic mission to ‘advise, assist and befriend’, is no longer seen by offenders as a mentoring organisation because it increasingly plays a compulsory and box ticking role in their lives... The CRCs will be responsible for providing rehabilitative services to all offenders who are deemed not to be high risk... This large group has never before been given any supervision or mentoring by the Probation Service, even though they are the most prolific re-offenders."
Fact 1: A succession of interfering government ministers must take the credit for introducing tick box regimes and removing the previously well developed volunteer arrangements, NOT the Probation Service.
Claim 2: "The Government has been careful not to prescribe the specific methodologies which may be used by CRCs to rehabilitate offenders."
Fact 2: The Government (in fact successive governments) have been obsessive and dictatorial in prescribing and imposing target-driven methodologies which have hamstrung professional probation practice.
Claim 3: "Mentoring is a process which does not come cheap... each voluntary mentor is likely to cost around £30 per week or £1,500 a year... Professional mentors cost around £20,000 a year each and senior case workers or mentoring supervisors around £25,000 per year."
Fact 3: Professionally qualified Probation Officers cost up to £35,000 per year, Probation Service Officers up to £27,000 per year. Chris Grayling has always argued its not about the cost, its about the quality. Yet the reality of the CRC plan being rushed through with indecent haste is plain for all to see.
Problem solved !!! Aitken's a fucking genius !!! Why didn't anyone think of it before?
Delete"if every church congregation or worshipping community found one volunteer mentor willing to mentor an offender, this report’s suggested target of recruiting 15,000 mentors would be met many times over."
And then we return to cheap solutions again:
Delete"One model that was suggested to us is that 70 per cent could be volunteers, 20 per cent full-time professionals and 10 per cent senior case workers and supervisors. On the basis of this illustrative model, a CRC who employed 100 such people would require a mentoring budget of around £750,000 a year."
£7,500 per person per year. And the purpose?
"if a sustained and well managed drive on mentoring reduced reoffending by 10 per cent (a target which most mentoring organisations think is achievable) then the savings to the taxpayer would be around £1 billion per year."
That's a trouser-filling profit for the CRC shareholders. My point?
Aitken "is a trustee, director or patron of eleven charities working in the field of offender rehabilitation and mentoring."
Many of the bid partners now at preferred bid status are given high status and credit in Aitken's report - Clinks, Rapt, Catch 22, Turning Point.
I go to church and we can't get anyone to make the tea never mind supervise the new releases !!
DeleteWith regard to the 'tic box culture'.
ReplyDeleteCRCs are going to work on a payment by results system. To evidence the 'results' and present compliant records to obtain payment, theres going to be a whole lot more boxes to tic then there are now.
Tic box culture? You ain't seen nothing yet!
Ever since TR was first mooted I started to develop a verbal tic, just an occasional "bollocks" or "crap" - which has now morphed into a full-on torrent of verbal abuse and inner rage. For reasons of public decency I won't elaborate further on Mr Brown's blogsite, suffice to say Grayling and his pack of greedy weasels are the subjects of the most profane oaths and curses every hour of every day. Shitheads!! (sorry).
Deletei am the same now, i used to be team player and polite, now i just say bollocks to any manger who says "innovation" or "opportunity"
DeleteI have been allocated to the CRC. I do not have any problem ticking boxes to make our performance look outstanding. Come on Chris Grayling bring it on.
ReplyDeleteI am a PO in a high risk team and want to share two examples working with mentors/ volunteers.
ReplyDeleteI was writing a PSR on a man for a violent offence who committed this whilst subject to the at risk period of a previous sentence. The mentor ( working in a drugs agency) repeatedly contacted me to provide information of the man's progress and sought to both influence me and to gain insight into my assessment of him. I felt under some pressure from her and a mentor from the much lauded community farm were this man did some work experience. Both were called as character witnesses and his defence counsel indicated I had told lies in my report. Alerted by the Court team over the lunch recess I drove to the Crown Court and the Judge was made aware the report author was in court. She stated to his counsel " I am not prepared to call the report author a liar" and I was not called. When sentenced to a lengthy custodial sentence the man shouted in open court "F*** Off I never want to see you again, you said this wouldn't happen" to the poor women. The Judge stated he had pulled the wool over the eyes of everyone except the Probation Officer. I had to comfort her outside the court, she was distraught as they had been in an intimate relationship and she was unaware of much of his offending history. Later, evidence came to light he had been dealing class A drugs in both projects.
The second concerned a volunteer with a church based charity working with asylum seekers who wanted to support a sex offender after he came out on licence. She wanted him to reside in her home because he was a thoroughly decent man. She was a grandmother with her grandchildren visiting her home regularly. He was high ROSH to children and police risk managers and my manager authorised disclosure which she simply refused to believe. She did not have any frame of reference to understand the risk she was inviting into her home.Under his licence he was not allowed to reside with her but her willingness to help him at all costs born out of genuine altruism, really undermined the relationship between PO and client. Eventually we were able to rescue this and he went on to successfully complete his licence having been supported by me to gain suitable independent accommodation and employment.
It just is not that simple is it Mr Aitken?
I have already spoken to Jonathan Aitken who is a true blue Tory and believes " Probation has lost it's way". He is setting up a mentoring service and introduced me to his graduate assistant who was swiftly given a history on the true implications of TR and the difficulties with mentoring! He is not listening!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHow can it have lost its way when re-offending rates are down and the inspectorate rates us highly? The problem is no one is listening because they don't want to; they have their goal that they are aiming for, irrelevant of whether it will work or not and they are going to follow through with the omnishambles no matter what the cost.
Deleteprobation lost its way when prison staff were put in charge of NOMS, hardly probations own doing was it????
DeleteTwo peas in a pod - Mr A and Mr G!!! They deserve whatever comes their way, and it won't be pretty.Their political and professional careers, or what is left of them will be in taters.
ReplyDeleteAs many others now working as probation staff in various roles, I started as a volunteer. I have no issue whatsoever with the notion of volunteers, not then, not now. However, some things need to be made clear.
ReplyDeleteHaving expressed my interest I was interviewed by a senior probation officer and had to undergo a PNC check (my rather dodgy past was discussed at length and, after some fierce questioning, I was given the green light). The area had been given a ring-fenced budget to start up a volunteers' scheme, managed by that SPO. I was given accredited training in first aid, basic counselling skills, maintaining confidentiality and holding boundaries. As my involvement progressed I was invited to attend probation service seminars on racism, domestic violence, sexual offending. I worked to a very tight brief with both the volunteer manager and the PO supervising the case taking joint responsibility for preparing me for each job. I was thoroughly de-briefed after every piece of work by both parties. Some tasks took two or three days to prepare for, complete and de-brief. If I did not attend for the prep meeting I didn't get the task allocated; if I didn't attend the de-brief or any other designated supervision session I was told I wouldn't be given any further work.
Some key issues arise from this:
* selection
* training
* appropriate management & oversight
* accountability
* no-one entitled to benefits would be able to take part under current rules
I have kept a record of my time spent as a volunteer and over the course of 25 months I attended 8 training courses lasting a total of 15 days; I attended 6 probation service events lasting a total of 9 days; I completed 61 tasks, which involved my attendance at 136 meetings with either the manager of the volunteers or the PO supervising the case in question. I worked with those being supervised as well as their family members.
I was the victim of 4 crimes against me in this role, which involved a total of 28 days either with police or in court as a witness.
That's 188 days I was unavailable for work out of approx 700. By today's benefit rules I'd have been sanctioned for the rest of my life.
The 24 days' training etc would have cost me around £3,000 to buy places on. The 136 days' supervision @ £18/hour (guesstimate) would have cost about £2,500. My subsistence & travel expenses were reimbursed on production of receipts (about £3,000 in total). That's an approx total of £4,250 per year - or £70 per task. And that was in the late 1980's.
£1,500 a year in 2014 is simply unbelievable.
On the back of my experiences I became experienced enough to then move into residential social work on a shift basis, and my career snowballed from there...
... the keyword being "career" - which was mentioned elsewhere on this blog recently. There was a well respected, public sector career structure with defined lines of progression. That doesn't exist anymore - so where lies the motivation, the incentive, the 'hook'? Altruism is, as an earlier blog identified very clearly, not enough.
However, I would suggest Aitken's motivation is that he has his eyes on a very generous pension fund (CRC dividends) - something his old chum Grayling can't wait to hand him on a silver collection plate.
Incredible the posts I read on here all well placed and in my opinion a genuine contribution to both our plight in probation and the inability of the politicians to understand what they are destroying for the sake of developing new markets for their blue voting paymasters. You cannot rule out the guy with the trusty shield and sense of British fair play is not just trying to rebuild his 3 million pounds fortune after ruining himself with his total disregard for honesty. Now why he should worry anyone in rehabilitation services is because many of us know there are many complex reasons that contribute to offending behaviour. Poor education low reasoning skills lack of conscious self challenge. Class economic and acquisitional aspiration. However the reasoning behind a wealthy established successful educated and establishment born man with prospects cuts right across what the average and skilled Probation officer would see on their allocations as a regular feature. So after a small and hospitable time in a sheltered prison with all the pandering he expected Mr Trusty Shield comes out lays low for a while and the Tories looking around to justify in a desperate way their TR agenda. Now I reckon they looked at most of the people in their ranks that might have some idea on crime rehabilitation and social need. I think they found plenty of fraudsters evidenced by the sheer number of expenses fiddlers in the Tory party. l think there were plenty of their ranks experiencing rehabilitation basically the new expenses claims rules. However one out of fashion tory in the corner of the barrel good old Trusty shield. Not only a reckless liar but perverting the course of justice no less and has a claim to having had the benefit of a tax payers paid for experience in Jail. Now he claims to be an expert on all of a sudden after a quiet spell getting into the new best Tory sell off. I guess the old school leaves no one retired or without party debts it looks to me to be to comfy an arrangement for there not to be something worth looking into. They need any support for TR and this shield venture a timely distraction from the real event the disastrous destruction of a 100 + year old developed Probation service that delivers the best quality at the best costs with most valuable outcome opportunity patience professionalism and care that actually delivers results not a profit ! Look out for the general election coming soon to the Liberal democrats and the Tory party and what we would all want to see out of destructive power the ordinary people of this country are not safe on any front from their policies.
ReplyDeleteOff topic but the tone and sentiment of this article is quite scarey.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10777503/Chris-Grayling-We-must-stop-the-legal-aid-abusers-tarnishing-Britains-justice-system.html
A reader's letter in a Notts newspaper (worksop) starts as follows:
ReplyDelete"Many people will never see the inside of a magistrates court but this is part of the British justice system which is being slowly dismantled by the government. We see these cuts alongside the reduction in police numbers, the privatisation of the probation service and the change in legal aid. We see our justice system being cut in the rule of austerity but there is a point when the public suffers."
Mr Bowskill goes on to explain that closing courts affects those having to attend, it affects the local policing resource and more. Well done, sir.