Tuesday 18 August 2015

You Were Warned!

I have absolutely no sympathy with any wailing from the Voluntary Sector regarding their involvement with the TR omnishambles, because they were warned! This on the Clinks website:-

WARNING SIGNALS – THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR IN TR

We know that the voluntary sector is central to the genuine transformation of rehabilitation and resettlement services, and although it is early doors, we have heard clear warning signals that many organisations remain on the side-lines, and others are fundamentally questioning their sustainability. Today we have launched the first #trackTR report, led by Clinks in partnership with NCVO and TRSC it provides a glimpse into the reality on the ground as told by charities working in the criminal justice sector.

156 voluntary sector organisations responded to our survey to give their views on the landmark Transforming Rehabilitation reforms that promised to put the sector “at the frontline of offender rehabilitation”. The sector is telling a story of being left in a state of limbo by a slow pace of change, cuts to funding, a lack of transparency, and apprehension amongst funders and commissioners. But others tell a different story, one where new contracts are won, with organisations getting ready to deliver and expanding their work with people in the Criminal Justice System.

A state of limbo

The transformation of probation has been slower than many in the voluntary sector were led to believe. Many are still waiting to see how or if they will be involved in service delivery beyond the next few months, making strategic planning and staff retention difficult. The few voluntary sector organisations that are managing to firm up new service delivery contracts are confined to our larger members with a national, or multi-regional footprint.

“The extent of delays in mobilisation… were not anticipated and this is now having a serious impact on our planning, budget/finances and managing our partners.” - Survey respondent

It is worth noting that the pace of change has been breakneck, and that the expected timescales for the implementation of new services have been much shorter than many would have liked, doubtless including many of the new owners of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) and the National Probation Service (NPS) who have both had to ensure that existing services are maintained whilst the re-structuring of the probation services continues. This will have had an impact on their collective capacity to focus on an approach that engages the widest range of voluntary sector delivery partners.

So the pace of change has brought challenges to all sides, however, it appears to be having the worst impact on those who have the least capacity to sustain themselves during this time - the smaller organisations that provide local (often specialist) support. It is unclear when, or if, these voluntary sector providers will find a place in the delivery model of CRCs in the months and years ahead. And by the time that does become clear many of these organisations may have had to close their doors.

A lack of transparency

There is little clarity on the role that charities will be playing in new probation contracts; we simply don’t have the detail yet. We don’t know what services the voluntary sector will be delivering, or how they will be resourced to do it.

“Core funding for our Female Offender services expired at the end of March 2015… some of this has been extended by 3 months but we have not got any assurance of continuity thereafter”. - Survey respondent

The lack of clarity makes it difficult to understand the role of the voluntary sector in the new reality, so we will continue to call for greater transparency around the value and quantity of work that gets sub-contracted to the voluntary sector. However, that isn’t our only concern, we have to interrogate what the voluntary sector is being asked to provide, whether it represents real quality, if it makes the best use of the assets and expertise of specialist organisations. Ultimately we should base our judgement of Transforming Rehabilitation on whether it is making a difference to the people who need better rehabilitation and resettlement services, their families, and the communities they return to.

As we continue to monitor the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation we will start to focus in on the delivery of specialist services. For example, we will explore what is happening to women-specific approaches, what is being done to address the disproportionate over-representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic offenders, how the distinct needs of young adults will be met, what is being done to support care leavers, or whether the needs of an ageing prison population have been considered.

Apprehension amongst funders and commissioners

The voluntary sector report a sense of apprehension amongst funders and commissioners about what new probation providers will fund (both Community Rehabilitation Companies & the National Probation Service). They report that some independent charitable funders and local commissioners are questioning whether they should continue to fund charities that work with offenders. Additionally commissioners appear to be cutting funding for some offender rehabilitation and resettlement services, especially in areas such as housing.

“We have had grant funding come to an end with the funder assuming that Transforming Rehabilitation contracts would replace this and/or not being comfortable funding work with charitable donations that could potentially deliver profit to private companies. We have also had prisons reluctant to commission work due to being uncertain whether it would be their or the Community Rehabilitation Company’s responsibility to do so.” – Survey respondent

This is making life all the more complicated for a range of voluntary sector organisations, both large and small. Not only does it affect their ability to plan their fundraising strategy, but it is also impacting on local relationships between the voluntary sector and other commissioners and funders. This issue, combined with the slower than expected mobilisation and the lack of transparency is causing widespread confusion amongst both providers and commissioners about who is (or should be) paying for what.

“Services previously funded by the local authority have been decommissioned as there is an expectation that Community Rehabilitation Companies will pick them up. This is particularly true in the case of housing. In reality this has not happened.” – Survey respondent

In the background to all of these funding decisions are the pre-existing cuts to the Ministry of Justice budget, which stands at a 24% budget reduction over the last five years (totalling £893 million). As part of the forthcoming 'spending review' the Ministry of Justice is being asked to make a further reduction of between 25% and 40%.

With cuts across other government departments such as health and welfare, as well as to local authorities, it is likely that services will come under more pressure in years ahead. This will doubtless mean that independent charitable trusts and foundations, who fund such a large proportion of the work done by the voluntary sector in criminal justice, will have to give careful consideration as to where and what they want to fund.

31 comments:

  1. I'm of the mind that all those Charitable/Voluntary organisations that jumped at Graylings TR debacle as a means of making profit deserve all they get. I even think they should in many cases lose their charity status and be reclassified as businesses. The same goes for those that tried to profit from Graylings benefit reforms.
    However, there are Voluntary/Charitable organisations that were opposed to such organisations becoming involved with TR and stayed clear of all those bidding for a quick buck.
    Whilst much of the third sector drooled over TR profits there was others that refused to dip their toes in that pool of dirty water. I think that is worth remembering. Yet TR has still brought problems for some of those that sought no involvement.
    One local agency close to me that does great work with people with drug addiction and disassociated itself from anything to do with TR is finding now that they are viewed more as an organisation that assists ex offenders rather then an agency whose primary focus is long term drug addiction.Why so? Not all, but most addicted adults do have a criminal record.
    The lines have become very blurred, and there seems to be a general assumption that if you work with people that have criminal records, you automatically need to be catalogued as belonging in some way to the TR process.
    Not all agencies swapped their integrity for a bag of Graylings magic beans, but non the less they are experiencing problems brought about both by TR, and by those that did sell their souls in the pursuit of profit.

    'Getafix'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There wont have been a single charity involved in TR in order to make a profit. By definition, charities cannot make a profit, so such a motivation cannot exist.

      Charities were involved in TR because they saw it (rightly or wrongly) as a viable way of pursuing their charitable objects, nothing more and nothing less

      Delete
  2. Absolutely. I have watched as most of my local Probation Trust's established on-site partners have been abandoned to be replaced by 'signposting'. Wanton destruction by ignorant pretenders.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those charities taking over core business functions should lose their charitable status, simple. Those charities involved in TR deserve what they get, they put potential TR income above any other consideration, most behaved in an immoral way and were collusive with the long slow death we are suffering now.
    They also facilitated Grayling by providing a 'front' to his deluded corrosive behaviour, many politicians reservations and therefore opposition was quietened because respectable charities were a key component of TR.
    A PO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So basically charitable status should be removed from any organisation doing something you don't approve of. What an excellent approach.

      (Charitable status is, by the way, a matter of law. An organisation's purposes are either charitable or they are not. Charitable status cannot be taken away. It is not in the gift of politicians or civil servants. It is a legal status derived from the purpose of the organisation).

      Delete
    2. Yeah. Like Eton, that school with charitable status.

      Delete
    3. I'm afraid you are simply wrong 20:24 charitable status CAN be removed when that charity acts ultra vires ie outside the scope of it's aims and objectives that allowed it to be registered as a charity in the first place. I and many others believe a lot of the TR fog involved charities behaving badly tome for the spotlight to fall of them me thinks.....let's start with when is a volunteer slave labour?
      Charities are coming under the spotlight...and it's great so let's start with the TR shite shall we? @cos they promised much and delivered nowt..

      Delete
    4. 07:10 - sorry, but it is you that is wrong. If a charity acts ultra vires, then it may still be a charity (if the act is a one off). If a charity is pursuing objects which are largely non-charitable, then it ceases to be a charity. The point is that whether or not an organisation is a charity is a matter of law, not a status that can be granted or withdrawn. The Charity Commission does not grant charitable status, it maintains a register of organisations which are charities. An important difference.

      I do not know what you think charities have done as part of TR that might mean that they are acting ultra vires. The idea that using volunteers is incompatible with being a charity is slightly odd - most charities use volunteers, some more than others.

      As to Eton (22:23) providing education is an established charitable purpose. You and I might not like the fact that Eton is a charity, but in law it is.

      Delete
  4. I fail to understand why some aspects should have been slow.

    Mr Grayling and his ministers, Wright, McNally, Hughes & Selous, repeatedly told us things would be better for prisoners approaching release and on their release if they had been sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment and no longer would they just have to rely for their only support on the £46.00 discharge grant.

    (For now we will ignore the fact that he did not mention that all convicts would have to pay a new court fee - but that it could be paid after their release - so those who did not have the cash to settle up straight away may also leave prison in debt to the MOJ)

    However he did say every under 12 month long sentenced prisoner would be moved to one of 30 local resettlement prisons where pre release preparations would begin from three months before release. He said that pre release preparation would include each prisoner having a visit from their appointed mentor before release and that the mentor will be at the gate to meet them on the day of their release, and will where necessary escort them to new accommodation and to register for work with the Department of Work and Pensions.

    Furthermore Mr Grayling set the date for these new arrangements to start was 1st February 2015, so it should be well underway by now.

    I am surprised we have not been reading about organisations saying how well the mentors were doing, in the manner of the CRCs jolly posts about those undergoing community punishment.

    So as I presume the mentors were to be volunteers there surely has been much for the Voluntary organisations to have been doing now.

    Has something gone wrong?

    Sadly the Media and parliamentarians do not seem to be publishing information about this or asking questions of the ministers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TTG doesn't seem to be happening in Working Links areas. The voluntary mentors will now be paid mentors. Definitely not peer mentors. There seems to be less help for released prisoners now than before TR

      Delete
  5. Look. TR is a cash cow for anyone wanting in on the money train. The high roller third sectors wanted a piece of the action and you can't knock them for that. Its what they didnt to do to survive. They want to expand operations and keep a lot of you in jobs so let's not bite the hand that feeds. The public sector couldn't do reduce crime so let the private companies and charities do it. They pay taxes, bring expertise and diversity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With respect, Probation was the BEST option of those that were available at the time and DID NOT work with the under=12 month cohort. Suggesting that it was 'failing' to meet the needs of a client group IT WAS NOT FUNDED TO WORK WITH is nothing more than attempting to re-write history.

      Delete
  6. I see there is a consultation going on about social work training, particularly in England being undertaken by the Department of Health.

    Lyn Romero the Chief Social Worker for England is eager that ALL social workers should take part and she has made it the subject of her latest blog post.

    She seems to have forgotten that many qualified social workers are employed in probation agencies, possibly some on temporary contracts - are such people being asked to contribute via their employers?

    I note that in her summary of what social work actually is involved with, she seems to have omitted to mention work with offenders, despite many Local Authority Social Workers having that as the prime focus of their job and that some are employed within psychiatric and special hospitals.

    I added a comment to her blog - which I will not be surprised if it does not satisfy the moderator - and may not appear - so I have repeated it on Google+ where there are also links to her blog, and in turn to the survey and consultation.

    I would be interested to read of the opinions of social workers within probation, about the consultations - it seems that the future social work (and maybe probation) training is very uncertain at present.

    https://plus.google.com/110641041120801344429/posts/8sHFwmee3HG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RESPONSE to my contribution at 20:48 - the consultation is NOT about Social Work training but "the Law Commission’s current review of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)."

      My mental capacity is in doubt in not clarifying that before I wrote about the Chief Social Worker for England's blog!

      Delete
  7. "They want to expand operations and keep a lot of you in jobs so let's not bite the hand that feeds. The public sector couldn't do reduce crime so let the private companies and charities do it. They pay taxes, bring expertise and diversity."

    Oh dear. Bollocks alert.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As the DWP gets found out making up stories and falsehoods it may not be long before survey results report all to be rosy and wonderful

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted making up comments from supposed "benefit claimants" that appeared in a leaflet about sanctions.

      The leaflet, which has now been withdrawn, included positive example stories from people who claimed to have interacted with the sanctions system.

      In one example, titled "Sarah's story", a jobseeker is quoted as being "really pleased" that a cut to her benefits supposedly encouraged her to re-draft her CV.

      "It's going to help me when I'm ready to go back to work," the fabricated quote reads.

      Another, by a benefit claimant supposedly called "Zac", details the sanctions system working well.

      But in response to a freedom of information request by the Welfare Weekly website the DWP said the quotes were not actually real cases and that the photos were not of real claimants.

      Delete
    2. Staff in WL CRC areas are already being asked to 'elaborate on the truth' re. accommodation targets. Wonder if this has something to do with payments?

      Delete
    3. So based upon the use of false names & fabricated statements, can we take a case against the DWP for benefit fraud? Keir Starmer might be able to advise.

      Delete
    4. My first response to the information given in JBs comment @ 21:52 is that whatever site bag cme up with that idea should go to prison.
      But when I think about it, there must have been a board meeting? Must have been someone responsible for recruiting those that appeared in the photos? Someone employed to design the layout of the article? A lot of money and time was spent on getting that message to the publics attention.
      It,s propaganda!!!
      What really worries me about that is that whilst the DWP may be outsourced it's still a GOVERNMENT department.
      I didn't do great at school, but I'm sure all my history lessons referred to right wing governments that used propaganda as a tool as fascist regimes?


      'Getafix'

      Delete
  9. There is absolutely no evidence of any real TR changes in an area north of London and South of the 'North'. Aside from enquiries from resettlement case workers asking if they can be provided with detail of any accommodation providers in the area and letters coming from prisons asking if there are any offending related interventions in the area !!!!. One, just one so far, person was moved to a resettlement prison, in an area close but distinct from where he wished to live and was collected at the gate by an accommodation provider...no one told the PO and the person who had arranged it all said " did he have to report to anyone ? I didn't know they had to do that "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of the 20+ resettlement prisons of which I have direct knowledge, all have CRC sub-contractors in place providing resettlement services and all are 85%+ prisoners from the home CRC. So things clearly have changed, whether you have seen it or not

      Delete
    2. Can we name some prisons in order to decide who is right?

      Delete
    3. People are being moved to local prisons, that is happening, however, in terms of resettlement services, this is clearly in development. Calls / emails from resettlement case workers who seem to have little if any knowledge of local resources or how NPS or CRC works are common... so far resettlement is being done by...guess who. Oasys screening forms are blank or have been completed shoddily and some of the questions are horrendous, if people are simply reading these out to be answered, !!!! As for any other interventions / service being offered by CRC's if anyone could find some and let people know how to access them then that would be very helpful .

      Delete
  10. I remember the St Giles trust fellow on channel 4 news rubbing his hands together whilst saying they were going to show how it's done with their off the peg old lags mentoring the new intake. Easy as pie. How's that going?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think it died a quick death!

      Delete
    2. St Giles trust is in the midlands area, not a peep really

      Delete
  11. Through the gate is a pile of shit. Basic screening forms left blank, no help with accommodation either. These people under 12 months are people we will have on our case loads forever !! They are very unlikely to be able to stop offending for a year and so will be on licence and pss forever more !! I personally have had to recall and breach this group far more than the over 12 mths. It's a joke. More cases no extra money or staff !!

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is how the 'market' is created. Fuck all to do with rehabilitation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We are a third sector through the gate project who are not in any of the TR supply chains, thank goodness it seems. We are watching the chaos unfold and seeing through the gate support deteriorating rather than improving. Without saying I could have written the book our referrals seem to be increasing, its a total mess but sadly it is peoples lives at the centre of it all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whilst taking care regarding your identity and that of the project, it would be great if you could say a bit more or even pen a guest blog piece.

      Delete