Sunday 11 May 2014

The Good Old Days 2

As far as I know, we don't often get comments from former or current clients, so I wanted to highlight the following that came in as a response to my blog post 'The Good Old Days'. The mention of models made out of matchsticks particularly resonated with me as I can well remember when I joined many probation officers had either a gypsy caravan or lighthouse on top of their filing cabinets, courtesy of grateful inmates. 

I'm an ex con. But my time away was a long time ago. You served 2/3rds of your sentence and no licence afterwards. The only time you got a licence was if you were lucky enough to get parole at the 1/3rd mark. The only leave you got was a 'short homeleave' in your last 6months and a 'terminal' home leave in your last 2months (6 days). The board of visitors could give you up to 6 months in the block and the governor could take up to 28 days remission on adjudication. Probation was referred to as 'the welfare'. We got one shower a week, one pair of clean pants and socks a week, and one clean shirt and towel too.

There was no in cell TV nor was there any in cell sanitation, just a bucket. But the food was good, everything was made on site from raw ingredients. People in the kitchens learnt how to cook/ make pastry, cakes, bread, pies, gravy's, custards. All wonderful skills to have if leaving prison and having to live an a low budget. We had books too, and plenty of access to the library. We had evening classes where you could involve yourself with things like creative writing, book binding or woodwork classes. They all afforded us skills of some sort upon release, and they also allowed you to make things for friends and family to be passed out on visits. It helped your loved ones to deal with your imprisonment more effectively. They could see you were actively engaged with something and not just festering in your cell.


We also had cell hobbies, and people made some amazing things from almost anything you can think of. Matchsticks, bread, scraps of wood, and I remember one person who carved beautiful ornate knife fork and spoon sets from the beef rib bones that the kitchen principal officer used to save for him every week. He was given enough discretion and autonomy to do so. Having cell hobbies did obviously create a black market on the landings and people sold their creations for tobacco. But prison staff weren't overly bothered. You'd showed initiative in making the object, put time and labour into its production, If someone is willing to pay for that object then your gain has been achieved by hard work, labour and honest means. Aren't those the things you need ingrained in your mind upon release? I can achieve through hard work and application?


But those were the days when being a prison officer was a career and not just another job. Those were the days when people in the CJS could back their own judgements based on their training, skills or just because you had a knack for it. They were times of great austerity in penal regimes (which should please both the public and the Tory party of today), but they were also times of opportunity where most left prison a little bit better off, if only because you'd learnt to cook, or learnt to enjoy the Sunday evening play on radio 4.


For me, I think the systems long lost its way, and expensive as it is it achieves very little for the public as a whole or those locked up. Locking people up on its own will never change someone. Its the stimulus their exposed to that effects any change. If that can be nurtured with a little helping hand on the sunny side of the wall then every ones a winner surely.


Keep politics out of the justice system. It'll make for a safer world, more productive rehabilitation, less reoffending and smaller prison populations. But please don't bring the bucket back.

15 comments:

  1. May i take you back to November 2012? Liz Calderbank (HMIP) wrote to Margaret Hodge (PAC chair). I've selected parts of her letter. Mrs Hodge may wish to re-read it (if she reads this blog) as it may add weight to the view that TR is hasty, dangerous and financially & socially expensive mistake.

    Dear Mrs Hodge,

    Reducing Costs and Reforming Delivery in NOMS

    Thank you for inviting me to the Public Affairs Committee on 7 November 2012. I was pleased to have the opportunity of addressing the committee and would like to highlight some additional matters on which you might wish to reflect. I have addressed my comments to the issues raised either directly in the report or at the meeting.

    The National Audit Office (NAO) rightly identifies tensions in the relationship between NOMS and probation trusts. In my view, these result as much from the history of NOMS’ development and the different organisational structures of the prison and probation services as any failings in its management... As a result, the work of the probation service is not fully understood at the centre and as a consequence not properly valued and too easily dismissed.

    The Probation Service has faced a significant drop in its resources over recent years but most trusts have worked well within the reduced resources and continued to not only meet their targets, but, as our inspections have shown, make incremental improvements in practice. They have a central and vital role in the management of those who pose a risk of harm to others in the community, a responsibility which, as we have shown by our inspections, discharges effectively (cf our report, Putting the Pieces Together, on the multi-agency public protection arrangements). The service also has a long history of working effectively with the voluntary and private sectors, police and other local authority providers in the community. Individuals subject to community orders or post release licence are seen regularly and the vast majority of orders and licences are appropriately enforced. As such, offenders are held to account and the ‘control’ element of the sentence effectively delivered.

    We are therefore encouraged by the move towards the exercise of greater professional judgement when working with people who have offended, and the accompanying emphasis placed on engaging them in the supervision process. It is still not clear, however, how this work will be incorporated in practice or how
    commercial companies will respond when professional judgement conflicts with commercial interest. This is not to say that the new arrangements cannot promote good practice and we can see from examples both within England and Wales and across Europe how public and private sectors have worked together successfully to reduce reoffending, but such work takes time. Any changes need to be undertaken with care, built on incrementally and not rushed.

    We are still waiting to hear the outcome of the probation review, which will determine how work with those who offend is taken forward. Its implementation will require careful thought and planning, otherwise we are in danger of losing a whole way of working with offenders which has a proven track record and is emulated by other jurisdictions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And here is some exquisitely crafted bullshit from Cameron in his 2007 paper "Prisons with a Purpose":

    The new tariff
    Each prisoner serving a determinate sentence will carry a tariff, with both a basic and premium component. This will be paid to the Prison and Rehabilitation Trusts or private sector prisons.

    Calculating the basic payment.
    The basic payment will be calculated based on the following elements:
    • Incarceration cost. The average variable cost of housing an individual in prison. Under this mechanism prisons will obviously have an incentive to drive their own cost levels below the average level of the estate.
    • In-prison rehabilitation cost. The average variable cost of providing training and treatment for an individual over the course of their sentence. Governors would be guided to use this funding pool to provide prisoners with the courses they need to comply with the requirements for Earned Release.
    • After-prison rehabilitation cost. The average variable cost of providing support and assistance for an individual prisoner after completion of sentence.

    The fixed tariff would be paid on a monthly basis or as process milestones are reached and would be weighted according to the assessed likely re-offending profile of a prisoner.

    Calculating the premium payment
    The premium payment will reflect the success of the Prison and Rehabilitation Trust or private prison in achieving reduction in recidivism in line with our targets. The total amount of the payment will only reflect the marginal cost savings to the criminal justice system of a reduction in re-offending and will not capture the much larger, but more nebulous, benefit to society of reduced recidivism. The premium payment will only be paid if a prisoner does not re-offend over the measurement period.

    The premium payment will be calculated as:
    Avoided prison cost + Avoided trial cost = Total premium tariff

    In order to reduce re-offending rates, providers of services will have to invest additional money in rehabilitation programmes while individuals are in prison and afterwards. However, payments will only be received when the expected reduction in re-offending is measured, which will be up to two years after release. In order to generate sufficient return to compensate for this risk transfer, we expect providers to invest substantially less than the total amount of the expected premium tariff.

    Measuring re-offending
    The current two-year reconviction rate is a crude measure of all those who are reconvicted for any offence within that period, taking no account of the number of offences or their seriousness. We will therefore aim to develop a measure of re-offending based on a crime index to take the severity and frequency of recidivism into account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The answer to any question about the commitment of CRC bidders to the provision of services is answered by Cameron himself in the piece above:

      "In order to reduce re-offending rates, providers of services will have to invest additional money in rehabilitation programmes while individuals are in prison and afterwards... In order to generate sufficient return to compensate for this risk transfer, we expect providers to invest substantially less than the total amount of the expected premium tariff."

      They have designed this whole TRashy system around the fact that in order for the bidders to make a profit the government "EXPECT PROVIDERS TO INVEST SUBSTANTIALLY LESS" than the payments they will receive from the government.

      Is this good use of public money Mrs Hodge? Is the £9+Million spent on consultants to expedite this TRavesty good use of public money? Is the £XMillions spent on wooing bidders and briefing the third sector with workshops and brochures good use of public money? Is the £YMillions spent on rebranding the NPS and CRC good use of public money?

      It is, plain and simple, an utter scandal and total incompetence.

      Delete
    2. Thats a basic fee and a bonus if you do well. It's not PbR.
      I've mentioned this before, but TR was put to parliament and voted on as a PbR model.
      If its not going to be a PbR model it should be brought back to parliament, debated on again and voted on again.
      If its not a strictly PbR model then both parliament and the public have been misled.

      Delete
  3. Completely off topic and not even related, but it makes my blood boil.
    The countrys in a mess, they've had a £7.5k payrise, and now? Fuck it lets have a holiday.
    They're like the pigs in Animal Farm.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625533/Has-coalition-run-ideas-MPs-given-19-days-no-laws-debate.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So £67k a year to sit in parliament for 142 days - thats without the £tens of thousands of expenses and other perks on top, including assistance with mortgages, furnishings, travel to and from work, and other subsidised costs of living.

      Av PO salary is £30k and we're expected to attend at our workplace for 230 days a year. In our rural area it costs me about £3.5k a year in fuel to get to and from my designated base. There's no subsidised canteen or restaurant or bar.

      Delete
    2. MPs are expected to be given another 19-day holiday, because the coalition has run out of policies.

      The Commons is set to break up early for the Queen’s Speech because there are not enough issues to debate, leading Labour to condemn the 'zombie government'.

      With David Cameron and Nick Cleg’s parties at loggerheads on several fronts, MPs are preparing to pack their bags on Thursday and not return until the Queen’s Speech on June 4.

      Delete
    3. Ministers have been stung by the idea they have run out of policies to debate, with Commons Leader Andrew Lansley branding the idea a ‘fantasy’.
      The House of Commons was due to sit until May 22, the day of the European and local elections.
      But MPs are likely to be given an extra week off, because there is no more legislation to debate ahead of the prorogation for the Queen’s Speech.
      It will fuel suggestions that the Queen’s Speech itself will contain little in the way of major new laws, because the two coalition parties cannot agree on their final legislation programme before the general election.

      Labour has repeatedly accused the government of running out of ideas, and the latest break will only add to the impression.
      Shadow Commons leader Angela Eagle said: ‘We are likely to rise a week early showing that this is a government that hasn't only run out of ideas, it's run out of steam.’
      Jon Ashworth MP, Labour’s shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: 'This is just the latest example of David Cameron's zombie government that simply staggers on despite the fact that Ministers have run out of ideas and have nothing left to say.
      'We need positive measures to deal with the cost-of-living crisis which the Tories and the Lib Dems cannot provide. Only Labour has answers.'

      Embarrassingly MPs have only been back in Westminster for eight days since they returned from a 17-day Easter recess.
      They also had nine days off in mid-February for a half term break, which came only four and a half weeks after their Christmas break which last from December 19 to January 6.
      In a debate last week Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said the government is ‘obviously grappling with how to fill up the hours of the day and the days of the week’.
      He called for the spare time to be used to allow backbench MPs to pass their own laws.

      ‘In that way, Parliament could become a real debating Chamber, enabling us to debate the issues that affect ordinary Members of this House rather than being sent into yet another recess because the Government have run out of business.’
      Shadow welfare minister Chris Bryant also raised fears that if Parliament is prorogued early it cannot be recalled to debate emergencies.
      He said: ‘It will be impossible for this House to be summoned, even if the Prime Minister wants it, even if the Leader of the House wants it, even if 649 Members of this House write to the Speaker and demand it, even if the Clerk of the House wants it.
      ‘We will not be able to sit for three weeks, and during that time, first, there will be elections in Ukraine, which could well be an important flashpoint for NATO troops, let alone anybody else; and, secondly, the Prime Minister will have to decide who will be the British Commissioner, and how Britain will vote on replacements for Mr Van Rompuy and for the President of the European Commission.
      ‘Would it not be better if we did not prorogue until the day before the Queen’s Speech, so that it was available for us to summon the House if necessary, to hold the Government to account?’
      Mr Lansley insisted no final decision has been made. ‘We have no intention of proroguing unless and until all the business that requires to be transacted in this Session has been completed,’ he told MPs.
      However, when he set out fortchoming business for the Commons he gave no details beyond this Thursday.
      Tuesday 13 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Consumer Rights Bill.
      The agenda for this week is hardly packed. At 2.30pm on Monday they will put questions to defence ministers before considering Lords amendments to a Care Bill and the last stages of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.



      Delete
    4. 142 days is the fewest number of days any modern government has ever sat in a parliamentary year. Presumably austerity measures are such that they've had to cut back on how many days MPs have to work. Sadly they became confused and voted themselves an 11% payrise (shurely shome mishtake?).

      Delete
  4. Are we all in shock now shadow processes have started? It is exhausting trying to keep things working as the systems are not developed. Noticed traffic on this blog has slowed..... it is just so bad there are no words....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I noticed that, I don't know if people are just resigned to the fact that TR is going ahead and this blog has not helped to stop it or that people are exhausted with it all.

      Delete
    2. I'm exhausted with pretty much everything. My caseload has more than doubled, I see* people, see* more people, see* some more people, go to child protection meetings (where I sooo want to tell the IRO that Joe Blogs will be turned round as quick as I can as I have a backlog in the waiting room), see people, complete Delius, answer emails/phone and see* some more people.

      Every single day!!

      *By see I mean have a quick 2 minute talk to see if anything has changed rather than help them as I used to.

      It's only going to get much worse and I'm unsure if the public (or indeed the Press) are aware of just how dangerous this new model is.

      My colleagues in the NPS see* people, write some of the PSR, see* people, little bot more PSR, get allocated more PSR's and see* people.

      Many reports are that rushed they are now coming through with no background checks for DV or Child Protection issues, adding to the list of things you have to do when you get the case.

      Something bad will happen and I hope the victim sues the arse off Grayling!!

      Delete
  5. I was once presented with a pufferfish lamp that resided quite happily on top of my filing cabinet for several years until an unfortunate incident with a visiting ACO known to flail their arms about whilst speaking - who left my office with a piece of it embedded in his elbow that subsequently required a visit to A&E. I also had a pair of sturdy book ends that kept Jarvis and copies of Napo Journal at bay. Happier days......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With parliament having an extended break, I think there may be a backlog of difficult questions to answer about the state of the CJS when it sits again on the 4th of june.
      That I think will be the last week of Grayling as justice minister!

      Delete
    2. oh I hope so, you have raised my spirits!

      Delete