Pick of the Week 18

Surprised at author's seemingly emotional 'let them fail' conclusion. Problem with privatising key public services is that they cannot be allowed to fail. Think about it, staff and service users take the brunt, the Criminal Justice System is challenged, bad news day(s) for Tories etc. The government needs to bring forward funded solution/strategy which means taxpayer to rescue. Post Mortem of idiocy that brought mess about gets then lost in the long grass. I think that will be direction of travel and not 'let them fail' which granted has an emotional appeal.

*****
Which is exactly why there should be no market in essential public services. Markets, businesses, companies fail all the time.

*****
CRC's may be failing but it doesn't stop those at the top being handed out huge payouts for 'hitting targets'. One in Cheshire given a five figure bonus on the basis that her staff hit targets. In a recent staff event we raised concerns about high workloads etc and the same manager told us to shut up and get on with it or leave. It's a shambles and a disgrace that she's profiting from treating staff like this.

*****
I still believe the responsibility for their impending catastrophic failure lies with the Private Companies. It was their duty to conduct all necessary checks on what they were buying into. It is unfortunate for them, that they did not do all the due diligence necessary and they failed to employ people who knew anything about front line work to do those checks. Therefore, the adage, law of Tort, says Buyer Beware; and on failing, they should have no recourse to a defence of "I didn't know guv"! Hell scud it into them!

*****
I remember being told that the bidders weren't allowed to ask existing staff questions about anything to do with the work; I think this had to do with not giving one a competitive advantage over others. Presumably they were free to pay for advice from one of the dodgy consultancy firms formed by ex-probation staff who couldn't cut it on the front line anymore. No doubt they all swallowed the line that staff in the public sector don't know how to innovate, and assumed there were rich pickings to be had. My only sympathy is for the staff who continue to suffer under the rule of these imbeciles.

*****
I remember them being ushered around our office all smiles in suits soaking up the complete and utter bullshit being spouted at them by a couple of ACOs who are now long gone with their pockets stuffed with EVR cash no doubt muttering 'so long suckers'.

*****
Aye, there are some fancy second homes in rural Europe recently acquired by ex-probation managers - one emailed me a few weeks back asking if I was interested in "mates rates" rental... Cheeky Bastard! Still, they won't have to cope with Trump Corp Probation Services.

*****
Government will, in time, argue the split is why the CRC's are failing. They won't use this as a reason to renationalise but to give the CRC an increasingly large share of the cases and responsibility for increased risk.

*****
E3 will pave the ground for this to happen. Court team bolted onto HMCS. Prison teams managing cases up until a few months before release. Community based OMs moved into CRCs (initially as a high risk team) and then job done. No more NPS.

*****
"It is worth recalling that before the government embarked on the transforming rehabilitation programme, every probation area had been rated as excellent or very good. It is possible for probation to recover its position as a good public service. But only if it is freed from the failed privatisation experiment so foolishly imposed upon in."

Hmmm having been on licence since before TR and continuing to be I can certainly attest that from a service user's point of view there is little difference between pre and post TR. The service in my area was always shit and continues to be shit post TR. I'm not clear who decided that things were all hunky dory before hand but the service users clearly were not consulted in the determining of that.

*****
Pre and post TR the same shit from service user's point of view as opposed to an award winning service: I wish the person who wrote that would explain from his/her point of view. As a PO my observation has always been they we were judged and awarded by our ability to deal ably and consistently with all the procedures and bureaucracy, and now we no longer can. 

As far as I am aware, apart from some notable exceptions, we were not judged and awarded by our ability to reduce reoffending or by making things happen which were likely to cause that reduction. Much of the rhetoric was anti service user holier than thou speak, and way before the split. An integral part of the way I operated was to strike uneasy bargains in terms of time and effort between process/bureaucracy and effective interventions which made the difference to a particular service user. That is until the PPO/IOM schemes came along and made those interventions more acceptable and manageable, if you were lucky enough to work in one of those teams. 

Things like the programmes and safeguarding when they were working well did make a difference to people's lives, but all in all when service users say that they can barely tell pre- and post TR apart I am not that surprised. Pre-TR there was not at a sufficiently high-level the rooting for the service user or consistent enough investment in those rehabilitative intervention options which would have made a difference to a lot of our service users. And much of the time staff were not trusted to be able to make sound suggestions. Anything not from "the top" was considered worthless.

*****
The death of 'Advise, Assist & Befriend' is a fair point which has been often discussed here, i.e. CJA 1991 politicised probation; various other Acts during the '90s consolidated that move; the choreographers of the new millennium brought us NPS v.1 & OASys; then the creation of Noms imposed death-by-bureaucracy, Trusts, "metrics", totally shit IT systems & a new ethos of Control and Command which ensured that senior probation staff with years of compassion-focused knowledge & experience were squeezed out, to be replaced with ambitious bullies eager to please their masters, shit on their staff, ignore the end-user & progress into the Noms hierarchy.

*****
I agree, "let them fail", and they will! It'd be sooner rather than later if Napo, the Probation Institute and probation senior management (the probation officer qualified NPS and CRC) would stop being complicit in this mess!!

*****
This is all very well but I am seriously worried that one day I will turn up at work, CRC, and there will literally be no one there but me! Our team is so small, we have lost admin support so already multi tasking, staff off sick for long periods and delius problems are constant. Really, can we take much more? We desperately need someone experienced and pro probation at the helm in our CRC. Not a brainwashed puppet. I for one would love to see our previous CPO back at the helm. The current director and existing ACO's have lost all credibility because they have failed to speak out and towed the line to keep the privateers and their pockets lined. If they want to be part of any post TR service then they need to stand up to the private companies and fight for the future of probation and its credibility admit that TR is failing and speak out, speak to Noms/MoJ and work with the unions. Ok, they may get the sack but they can walk away with their heads held high and then return to help sort out the mess once the privateers go. Many PO's and PSO's have already done this and hopefully some of them will also do the same.

*****
A good point about markets failing - though let's remember that in several CPAs there was only one bidder, meaning that there was no 'market' as such at all! TR was predicated on the Tory mantra of 'private good, public bad', and the assumption that the public sector Trusts were bloated and full of non-jobs. Funnily enough they are now discovering that the magic of competition won't suddenly uncover mystical new ways of lean, efficient working that people who had done the job for decades were ignorant of.

*****
I am in the CRC but not the one in question here. My managers have informed us that there is no limit to the cases they will pile on our caseloads. If they need allocating they will be allocated no matter what our workload is already. Call me old fashioned but is that not totally unreasonable and grounds for a grievance? Do grievances even count for anything any more?

*****
We are being told similar things - it's not about the number of cases that you hold but the throughput. Get them through their Order as quickly as possible, never mind whether it worked or not, otherwise you'll drown in allocations.

*****
At one level, it makes no difference how many cases you hold - be it 50,100, 200.There are still only 7.5 hours in the working day, and you can only do what you can do. Harden your heart, look after yourself and record everything on delius. It is my understanding that the MoJ can access delius independently (whereas previously files had to be requested for inspection) and that they roam around the system checking records. 'Workload issues', 'operational issues' and 'staffing issues' are phrases I use regularly.

*****
What on earth was that all about Glenys? Placating the sentencers? Had I been a sentencer listening to that I would have been none the wiser. And those RARs, it is a mystery what they are meant to be for. Not easy to know where to signpost people so they can be "seen to" and their offending behaviour cured. Even if you signpost someone to go somewhere you would need to have a system whereby you can check that they have attended. You would have to have an agreement with the relevant organisation that confirmation of attendance would be ok. Apparently you are not supposed to count attendance to see probation officer as a RAR session. But at the same time probation staff get slated if the service user hasn't been "seen". 

Time was when "relationship" played a part in the process, when a service user would have some continuity, seeing one officer for a while, establishing a rapport and from there begin to acquire the confidence to take on the world differently. Time was when end to end work was the buzzword. I am not saying there is only one way to skin a cat. Having options and flexibility is good. But you can signpost till you are blue in the face, you still have to be sure that the organisation you signpost to is not just another signposting organisation. Who will actually do the actual work with people when in austerity Britain all services have been pared down to the bare bones?

*****
The other thing to take into account is that the RARs are "up to", which theoretically means there is no obligation to complete all or any of the RAR sessions. Are the sentencers aware of how wishy washy, unspecific and badly written this law is? Glenys does not appear to have pointed this out in her speech.

*****
Some of this is good but some of it not so much. For example a smaller NOMS? NOMS should be done away with entirely as it serves no useful function whatsoever & merely adds a layer of bureaucracy that is unnecessary. It's functions should be done in house at the MoJ like they used to be.

As for giving governors more power, well first you would need to weed out all those ineffective and corrupt governors (Hello Helga Swidenbank) and have some sort of mechanism to ensure that governors get some sort of psychological assessment to ensure that they are the right people for the job not simply the next in line for a lucrative boost to their career or rewarded for failure so that the extra power is not abused.

*****
In our NPS team meeting in a office 'up north' we were asked to look for cases to pass to new PSO's who arrived 2 weeks ago, they have no experience and have had no training. They all look like they have come straight from school. If only the public knew this is how seriously their safety is being taken. The whole shitty mess is an absolute joke. But so, so worrying. Where will it all end? Tragedy no doubt. Somebody do something before it's too late.

*****
Oh, and more essential, mandatory training - parole and oral hearing stuff! I concede this would be helpful, but none of us can access the justice academy website! More reminders arriving every week to get it done! We are told we can log in using free standing PC's in the office - we don't have one! Some guys arrived last month with an all singing, dancing photocopier and scanner, plumbed it in, and our fax and PC hasn't worked since! The solution it seems, is to do the work on your home PC, really? I work with someone who doesn't even own a mobile phone, so how can she get equal access to learning and self development? We have been told we will soon be receiving lap tops, one per office, but no expected date of arrival! Needless, to say, once I've done the on line stuff, I will once again be hunting high and low for a classroom, to complete the training! Crock of shite!

*****
Sounds like NPS is in a sorry state too. At CRC things were still working ..ish at BGSW CRC up until about a year ago. Then they did away with a perfectly usable system My HR, which we could use to quickly fill in our timesheets and request leave or toil and brought back old methods that take ages to complete and then swap some managers around and no one knows what the hell is going on.offices move, phone numbers change constantly, new system or person for pool car booking. 

Call WL IT to report that you have problems with delius and they just log it and ask you to call your CRC IT team who are rapidly shrinking. Staff leaving on a weekly basis and their tasks having to be swallowed by someone else. And that is before the major cuts we are now facing! Try to transfer a case to another area, good luck with that! 

No more joined up system, all using different e mail providers so can't just tap in a name anymore. What happened to napo directory? London CRC apparently needing that new wall mounted invention a lot these days! Any more news? Training? What is that? A rare commodity these days! Remember all the great training we used to have from experienced probation officers who had earned their stripes moving around within the organisation? If I think back to the training I have had over my career, the courses I can actually remember what would stand out would be this:

A trainer who inspires respect through broad knowledge and experience that relates to your organisation. 

A common objective and ownership. All staff owning a way of working and feeling enthusiastic in taking it forward and making it work.

Putting the service user/public at the heart of what we do.

This could also apply to the pre-requisites of any functioning organisation.

*****
Are you all deluded? If the NPS was interested in staff training and development it wouldn't be replacing qualified PO's with PSO's. Nor would it have just replaced the previous sub-standard PQF PO training with the far worse PQiP PO training.

Training in the NPS cannot really be called training. You'll see various training advertised on the civil service website we're directed too by various 'NPS Communications' emails, simply so they can blame us for not accessing or implementing training when something goes wrong. It's either online tick box rubbish or a self read workbook/document that doesn't tell you anything new. If you manage to get onto a classroom based training it will be a PowerPoint presentation (not training) by NOMS trainers who can't or won't say anything more than the script in front of them.

*****
Have not been on any Nationally Mandated training since 2014. Cannot find my way round the Phoenix system. I get told to look on this site or that site and cannot find them, cannot get on them when I do, cannot access the right page should I actually find them and finally cannot find any relevant training in the mass of pointless programmes when I do. Its a bit shit really.

*****
Prisoners coming out of HMP Liverpool saying that inmates are forcing people to move cells and staff having no part in it. Wings with 2 staff and lawlessness - weak inmates being falsely accused by other inmates and forced to pay-up and intimidation rife. HMIP needs to start from scratch with the prison system as it is broken. HMP Kennet closing so cram those prisoners in already over-croweded establishments.

*****
Knowing this is happening should probation staff be recalling to prison those who fail to comply with their licences?

*****

In my area recall is the last resort when all else fails but I agree that the stories coming out of prisons now make me dread having to consider recall. Prison just doesn't seem to be working for anyone.

*****

If you have serious concerns about someone being risk to general public or known potential victim then you have a duty to recall in the right circumstances. I think we need to use our discretion. The problem is we rely on having the right tools for the job and yet we know offenders we supervise will be at increased risk both personally and in terms of further criminal associations from going into custody. 

At CRC it is further frustrated because we don't write PSR's when someone re-offends and rely on NPS to reflect our views. I did what I could to argue a case for keeping one young woman in the community following harassment offences but they sent her down. Not doing well emotionally or physically and unlikely to reduce her risk once she comes out because no one is working on her issues in custody. What we need are stronger more effective community sentences. 

My seeing someone once a week for an hour at most will never be enough. We need multi disciplinary working with a team including probation officers, police, mental health, social workers, IDVA, housing, education..women's centres and men's centres, effective groups in the locality. What we could do with is effective services and funding yet we are being reduced to a handful of de-moralised PO and PSO's in offices not fit for purpose. We know what we need to do to make a difference, but we are ignored and decisions made by people who have never worked with offenders or disadvantaged groups. 

We could fund this by reducing prison numbers and moving funds over to community supervision. Also more approved premises instead of prison. Prison is extremely expensive and de-humanising. It is not about simply putting a tag on someone, however, and off you go but really being creative and understanding what package would work for each individual.

*****
Didn't we have all of that before the split called IOMs Integrated Offender Management Teams? We even had a prison officer from the nearby prison seconded to the team. Guess what It Worked!

*****
Exactly! But we need to make a case not to 'bring it back because it worked' but allow an egotistical politician or MoJ big-wig to call it something different and announce it as their latest knee jerk light bulb moment written on the back of a beer mat or inscribed into a satsuma! Then hey presto!

*****
Violence in prisons is of course a very real and major concern for the CJS. However, the lack of access to health care and mental health services, addiction services etc should warrant just the same level of concern. The whole system is in such disarray that decision makers should surely face prosecution for their failings. Corporate manslaughter? Health and safety legislation? Failing in duty of care?

*****
Just read the news article in the Northern Chronicle about the levels of violence, drugs, bullying etc going on in HMP Northumberland. Napo Northumbria branch raised this with the local media and MPs in 2014 and warned it would get worse. What a shock we were right! The contract should be taken off Sodexo. How can a company be awarded the contract for providing prison services and also the contract for supervising released prisoners. Can we ask Mr and Mrs Paul McDowall both working for Sodexo, but prior to that Noms employees and then so called independent Probation Inspector. It all stinks!

*****
Sadly the way it works is that somebody has to die for changes to be made. HMP Pentonville is a public sector prison but look how much around it has been privatised and sold off. Of course people in prison and on release are going to kill and be killed when they're caged like animals for the period of sentence and then released to hardly any support from probation, social service, housing, mental health, and so on. Outsourcing plus cuts has led to this current disaster where CJS and public sector services are designed to be useless and the buck stops at the offices of the meerkat-looking Justice Secretary and the Thatcher-wannabe hag of a Prime Minister, and we have no idea how Brexit is going to affect it all.

In 2013 I read this in the Guardian:

"What happens when these firms, with their inexorable expansionist logic, bite off more than they can chew? We pay anyway. We paid G4S; we will pay it again when its prisons catch fire. We will pay A4e when it finds no jobs, we will pay Serco when its probation services fail. We will pay because even when they're not delivered by the public sector, these are still public services, and the ones that aren't too big to fail are too important. What any government creates with massive-scale outsourcing is not "new efficiency", it is a shadow state; we can't pin it down any more than we can vote it out. All we can do is watch."