What Needs to be Done

I notice the Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies is blunt in what the government needs to do in order to repair the damage done to probation by TR:-

Let them fail

Far from trying to rescue the struggling privatised probation companies, the government should let them fail, Richard Garside argues

In its structure, planning, delivery and financing, probation across England and Wales faces major problems. These are problems created by government, through the ill-advised ‘transforming rehabilitation’ programme. Whatever its original intent, this programme is sabotaging, rather than transforming, probation work across England and Wales.

A problem foretold

Many of the problems faced by the fragmented probation services across England and Wales were foretold by the House of Commons Justice Committee, in a report back January 2014. Across a range of areas – programme design and definition of outcome, programme costings, transition planning and professional buy-in, to name but a few – the Committee’s report raised significant concerns and questions.

Things fall apart

Assessments published over recent months have vindicated the Committee's judgement. These include:

an April 2016 report by the National Audit Office, which highlighted a yawning gap between the estimated caseload volumes the private 'Community Rehabilitation Companies' (CRC) used to cost up their bids, and the actual caseload volumes they are working with;

a September 2016 report by the Public Accounts Committee, which found that delivery of probation services across England and Wales has become mixed and patchy, when it is not chaotic and inadequate;

a September 2016 report by the Probation Inspectorate into services for criminalised women, which identified a dramatic decline in the quality and provision of services;

and an October 2016 joint report by the Inspectorates of Probation and Prison on resettlement services for prisoners on short sentences. This report found that services were 'poor' and that 'there was little to commend' about them.

Earlier this month, the Financial Times reported that ‘almost every contract to provide probation services... is lossmaking’. Talks to resolve the problems faced by the CRCs had stalled, the paper also noted.

Market failure

The problems facing the CRCs are only likely to grow over time. At best, the government's current approach appears to revolve around attempting to make a badly-designed system work slightly less badly. The risk is that it will simply entrench the existing dysfunctions.

Instead, the government should embrace, not evade, the implications of market failure. The CRCs are struggling because the market in probation services, constructed by the former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, was an ill-judged ideological experiment detached from the reality of how probation works in practice. 

The government should take decisive action to draw a line under the mistakes of the past and to place probation on a coherent and sustainable footing. Contracts with the CRCs should be brought to a close as soon as possible, to be replaced by a unified, public sector probation service, organised locally/regionally and coordinated nationally.

If the penalties for ending the CRC contracts early prove too costly, the government should adopt an incremental approach, bringing the CRCs back into public hands as they fail or surrender their contracts.

Things can get better

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.

--oo00oo--

Richard Garside is the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and senior visiting research fellow at The Open University. He came to the Centre in 2003 to set up the 'Crime and Society Foundation' project, becoming the Centre's director in 2006. Prior to joining the Centre Richard worked for Nacro, the crime reduction charity as head of communications.

Richard is the author of numerous pamphlets and articles and is in demand as a conference speaker. He also appears regularly in national print and broadcast media as a commentator on crime, criminal justice and social harm.

Postscript

I notice that this article has already prompted some discussion on Facebook:-

Sadly they will not, this will be propped up at great expense while E3 destroys the NPS

Interestingly it has literally come down to a decision for the government to either prop them up (going against Tory ideology) or let them fail (following Tory ideology) The problem they have is that they created the conditions that set the companies up to fail and the companies could easily walk away claiming foul play and frustration of contract. This could then result in a crisis because all the companies owned by a particular owner may well be handed back and these are now being run differently from those companies run by their competitors. The companies are replacing all the key positions in these companies by non-probation people they have drafted in with lucrative benefits. These people will either go with the owners or the government will be landed with a considerable bill for a large number of persons who know very little about probation and contribute very little to the business other than lots of corporate vision about how good things could be if they had the money to spend but nevertheless are taking money out of it. In fact weren't these the people that Douglas Adams described as the telephone sanitisers etc who the NPS seem to be able to do without and yet are multiplying in the CRC like fruit flies on a banana.

Perhaps the only way is to get it over with and let them fail

It's sad for the hard working frontline staff in the CRSs who were dragged from their previous probation areas and who still want and try to deliver the excellent service pre-TR but are hindered by non-probation employers who are implementing policies and procedures based on what they think we as staff need rather than listen to us who have the experience and knowledge. It's soul destroying to be told in a recent HMIP inspection that we're functioning below the expected standards when the outcome of our last pre-TR inspection was excellent.

Haven't read the article but we all predicted that it wouldn't work. There is already evidence of failure despite the hard work and commitment of hardworking colleagues. TR has, in my opinion, had a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of many members of staff both in NPS and CRC.

And if CRCs do fail - what happens to the staff? We've all already had 3 years of hell whichever side we got put on.

I am retired PO from the proper service day!! I have a child who is current working as what was an unqualified PO and is also a third generation to work in the service, who is now in the new service and works ony part time but has a case load of 80!!!! how the hell is that a good service, with no resources, lack of informed senior management, poor senior PO's who have sold over to the private sector and are focused on targets and profits and what I echo is the concern about Mental Health as I watch my child slowly melt and descend into dispair and levels of stress and anxiety which no person should have to work under, without the support or tools to do the job, its gone to hell in a bucket and I am so sad about the whole affair and recently was offered TUPE over to an organisation (Charity based so they say!) who also provides NOMs around the country, needless to say I said no thanks I would not work for anyone who had brought about such chaos and mayhem into the work place for staff and 'service users' sad sad times.

What happens to the staff? Yes. That's a concern but what happens to the clients is the question I would ask - and leading onto that future victims of the clients ......

I agree entirely. Though not sure anyone with any power has thought about what's best for clients for a long long time.

His argument is ... let the CRCs fail, take the work back into public sector, and make things as much as they were before the failed experiment. Which has its attractions, but I worry that what would actually happen is that one CRC would be seen as better than the others and achieve a monopoly (with the govt patting itself on the back for encouraging competition). And then the whole private sector rehabilitation shambles would be run by a company that couldn't fix the flush on the loo in my last but one office.

Yes but ....how's this for Tory thinking. Bring all probation work back into the NPS. So all clients transfer into public sector .... blaming staff in CRCs for failure thereby making all crc staff redundant as they are in fact employees of the private companies and no longer the governments responsibility. That would save them a huge amount of money - and I wouldn't put it past them to try !!!

There are two options for me. This fails and goes into public ownership or I'm out.

This article has links to reports most of which have appeared on this page, but it makes a handy point for cutting and pasting all or some and EMAILING YOUR MP. If and when the CRCs fall over, the case for taking them back into public ownership is going to be a political decision. Educate your MP.