Saturday 29 October 2016

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.

33 comments:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Welcome to the Treasuredome". Short-termism at its venal best which suits & rewards the greedy bullies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
    2. 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 wh are now long gone with their pockets stuffed with EVR cash no doubt muttering 'so long suckers'

      Delete
    3. 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.

      Delete
  4. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
  5. I'll keep on saying it, however pointless it may be - the fuckwit bully Grayling & those who were instrumental in the implementation of TR (civil servants, probation chiefs, politicians, etc) should be publicly named, shamed & penalised for this ghastly, unnecessary & massively expensive vanity project. The £manyMillions of public money wasted at a time of "austerity" is simply criminal. The impact upon staff, clients & the public continues to take its toll.

    Christopher Stephen Grayling is MP for Epsom, Surrey - nowhere near Heathrow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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.

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

      Delete
  7. "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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you mean from *one* service user's point of view? I'll happily accept that staff won't fully know what the experience of their clients is, but I think they are in a better position to judge the overall difference in service than a single individual.

      Delete
    2. "there is little difference between pre and post TR. The service in my area was always shit and continues to be shit post TR."

      It would be extremely interesting and helpful if you could expand a little, in general terms of course in order to protect identification. Thanks.

      Delete
  8. As it is all pouring out now, I wonder how the govt and those civil servants who received accolades, and no doubt nice big rewards for the 'success' of TR, can justify the big hugs which they received, as they smiled smugly at the press cameras.

    Will they have their rewards removed and be dismissed for the shit which is now hitting the public arena big time? And what will happen to CG - another box of Milk Tray for the brilliant thinking of another Heathrow runway? I personally think he should be stood in front of the first plane out, as it belts along the runway..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://probationmatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/omnishambles-wins-award.html

      Here is a reminder that someone won award for this bullshit

      Delete
    2. Thanks 14.11. if anyone out there has a number phobia,like me, you can get that blog up by just typing 'omnishambles wins award'.

      And I notice one of the winners is the 'Chris Martin Policy Award'. Surely not.. I will never listen to 'Paradise ' again.... But I would certainly like to 'Fix' him.

      Just in case someone out there doesn't get it, Chris Martin is the main man in Coldplay, and no, I don't think that this the same Chris.

      Delete
  9. I'm not sure of the answer, but if you put everyone on a tag would it better suit the operational models that the privateers have adopted?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37803105

    'Getafix'

    ReplyDelete
  10. Probation Officer29 October 2016 at 15:29

    I agree, "let them fail", and they will! Itd 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!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. 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 bit 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 fircthe 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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 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 wee not trusted to be able to make sound suggestions. Anything not from "the top" was considered worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rioting at HMP Lewis tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  14. An "incident" apparently (aka a riot!!).

    http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/crime/prisoners-involved-in-incident-at-lewes-prison-1-7652914

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hands up all NPS probation officers that'll be opting to transfer to prisons when E3 kicks in?

      Delete
    2. From BBC news;

      Prison staff were forced to "retreat to safety" when inmates "went on the rampage" at a Sussex jail, the Prison Officers Association (POA) has said.
      Cells and offices were damaged in the disorder at HMP Lewes, which POA chairman Mike Rolfe said was brought to an end by a national response unit.
      He said: "It's a serious disturbance when prisoners take control of a wing."
      The Ministry of Justice said a small number of inmates were involved adding: "The prison is completely secure."
      An MoJ spokesman said: "We are absolutely clear that prisoners who behave in this way will be punished and could spend significantly longer behind bars."
      Mr Rolfe said the prisoners involved would have been taken to a segregation unit.
      Blaming "poor management and severe shortage of staff", he said: "There were only four staff on that wing and all four retreated to safety after threats of violence and the prisoners went on the rampage."

      Delete
  15. Blame the government for the whole sorry mess. The buck stops at the top! Bullingdon inmates claim the prison is completely awash with drugs and that can only mean certain staff are facilitating this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's not much hope for a rehabilitation revolution when the MOJs thinking is encapsulated in this response to the disturbance at Lewis,
      "An MoJ spokesman said: "We are absolutely clear that prisoners who behave in this way will be punished and could spend significantly longer behind bars."
      Given that people are being murdered on prison landings and staff are fearful for their safety, wouldn't the correct response be,
      "we'll investigate the disturbance and take "appropriate" action once we understand why this happened?

      'Getafix'

      Delete
  16. Going back a bit, that service user earlier on saying the service was shit pre as well as post TR, in spite if probation having won an award pre TR : as a PO I am not that surprised at this remark. We were judged and awarded for our ability to deal adequately and consistently with bureaucratic processes. Post TR we can no longer manage that, hence no more awards for us. But pre TR I remember always the uncomfortable deals I had to strike in terms of time and effort with keeping that insatiable bureaucratic monster satisfied whilst at the same time getting around to doing whatever would be useful to promote the progress of the "cases". And let us face it we did not all of us always manage that balance 100% of the time, did we. So if a service user remarks he has noticed little difference , fair enough. What would he/ she consider should attract an award in probation? I know what my ideas would be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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 millenium 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.

      Delete
  17. can I just say the Interserve induction model is rubbish - nobody's interested, they just want to know the rules & regs and their next appointments. All this about where are you now with x y z is not required in a group induction setting. Staff and service-users all think this. The previous induction was never complained about so lets revert and stop this bureaucratic nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Where is all this crap going to end. It won't be Grayling or senior management that failed to speak up against TR that carry the can. It will be the staff and clients left with another pile of shit to deal with. When will the people wake up to what this government does to them. They can drive through privatisation with rubbish policies cos it never comes back to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will end when either the UK Governement takes action of its own accord or is forced to take action by Parliament - ultimately that is the UK democratic purpose - to be part of it we need to offer ourselve for election or to contact those who are elected or who make demands of those who are elected.We also have other agency as customers, workers, and electors.

      Delete
    2. Typo - I meant UK democratic PROCESS not purpose.

      Delete