It's been a busy week here at blog HQ and I had nothing prepared for today. But then I'm sure I just heard Michael Gove refer to the difficulty of being interviewed by the likes of John Humpfrys on the flagship BBC Radio 4 Today programme when embroiled in an 'omnishambles' - a situation that has been comprehensively mismanaged, characterized by a string of blunders and miscalculations.
It reminded me of this from 2016 which I noticed garnered a staggering 47 comments. In the wake of Wednesday's Panorama, it seems rather appropriate to revisit the Civil Service World interview from October 2015:-
It reminded me of this from 2016 which I noticed garnered a staggering 47 comments. In the wake of Wednesday's Panorama, it seems rather appropriate to revisit the Civil Service World interview from October 2015:-
Paul Wilson interview: the interim probation inspector on reform, outsourcing and resource pressures
The controversial privatisation of probation services is no “omnishambles”, interim chief inspector Paul Wilson tells Sarah Aston. But he does worry that resource pressures could lead to a repeat of the Daniel Sonnex tragedy
Arriving at the Ministry of Justice to meet interim chief inspector of probation Paul Wilson, one thing is on CSW’s mind. With the sixth season of the BBC’s Great British Bake Off still in full flow, CSW wants to know if the chief inspector – who, bar a five-year stint in the private sector, has spent his 40 year career in probation – has ever met Paul, the prison governor who baked his way into the quarter finals of the show?
“Is he the one with the beard?” Wilson asks, before revealing he has never met the culinary governor. His wife watches the show, but he apparently only catches it from time to time. That’s perhaps unsurprising, given the daunting workload Wilson inherited after stepping into the chief inspector role in February – a post he will remain in while the government searches for a permanent replacement for Paul McDowell, who was forced to resign over criticism of his personal relationship with MoJ outsourcing bidder Sodexo-Nacro.
A veteran in his field, Wilson joined the profession at 21 as a probation officer (“After university, I carried on doing a ‘vacation job’ in catering, but then I met the person who was going to become my wife and she was already a qualified teacher so I thought, I really ought to get a ‘proper’ job”) and has led probation services up and down the country, as well as serving as a non-executive director at the National Offender Management Service.
In his current role, Wilson is not only overseeing a shakeup of the inspectorate’s model, but is also responsible for ensuring the comprehensive Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms maintain probation standards. Introduced in April 2015, the reform programme has seen the privatisation of almost 70% of probation services, splitting offender management between privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the National Probation Service (NPS).
It’s a challenging task, given the apparent unpopularity of the reform programme. In April 2014, probation staff around the country went on strike over the changes and penal reform campaigners have continued to express concerns. “It is absolutely true that the reforms were very unpopular, of course they were – it’s a huge amount of disruption,” Wilson says.
This is picked up in the chief inspector’s annual report – published in August – in which Wilson said there are “significant operational and information sharing concerns across the boundaries of the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies”. However, the report went on to conclude that “transitional” problems could be resolved with “time and continuing goodwill”.
“There are still significant numbers of staff who retain that optimism, and hope that, freed from some of the bureaucracy of the public sector, they will be able to exercise more professional judgement and get more job satisfaction,” Wilson explains.
“For all we have reported on real issues around practice, it is true to say that the wheels are not coming off the probation service. It is withstanding this change process very well indeed and performance for the most part is standing up. Omnishambles this is not.”
When he speaks about the reform programme, Wilson’s tone is generally sanguine. Yet he does accept there have been real challenges in delivering it, and concedes that, in some cases, concerns over privatising offender management are valid. These concerns have been supported by his inspections.
Among the biggest changes are the decision to outsource the majority of cases – CRCs are now responsible for all low-medium risk cases, while the NPS handles the high risk cases – and the move to introduce a payment-by-results framework for CRCs. One campaign group told CSW this framework raises questions about the incentives behind managing caseloads, as there is a risk companies might focus on “easy” cases to ensure payment, or fail to escalate those deemed a “high risk” to the NPS for fear of losing money. Is Wilson worried about these scenarios?
“The idea of perverse incentives has been an issue since payments-by-results was mooted in the coalition government,” Wilson acknowledges. “There is a concern about getting the allocation system right. There are major teething issues around that process – that absolutely cannot be denied – but that’s not a failure of policy or probation instruction, it’s an issue around the time and the priority that practitioners actually have in the heat of the courtroom and the 24 to 48 hour turnaround that follows the court’s decision.”
“We simply can’t know the answer to those questions yet. In my annual report I said that I thought it would be two or three years before the system is settled and the data is reliable enough to make judgements about that sort of thing,” he says. “On social media that was characterised, I think, as me saying: “Well, fingers crossed!” he adds wryly. “It’s not that for a minute, it is just it would be wrong to leap to conclusions at this point in time before the system is anything like mature.”
Likewise, when asked if he believes companies will use the need for commercial confidentiality to block inspection work into key areas of service delivery, the probation watchdog says that, while he does not think it will be a problem, it is too soon to tell.
“I think it has been a reality in one or two sets of circumstances in which the inspectorate has been involved, but as we engage with CRCs, I’m for the most part reassured that the new companies see a bigger picture than that, and are prepared to share what they are doing and their data and information, and will do so into the future,” he says.
“I understand the issue, but I think it’s far too soon to be pessimistic about the way CRCs will respond. Overall, we have to hope everyone invests in the probation system, and sees that, actually, all the organisations are still very much connected. I’m still optimistic about the ability of the whole system to work across the board.”
While Wilson remains hopeful about the success of the reforms, one area he is decidedly less assured about is the impact of any further cuts as a result of the austerity agenda. And while all Whitehall departments and arm’s length bodies are facing spending challenges, Wilson has seen first hand the consequences resource pressures can have on the probation service. In 2009, he was appointed chief probation officer in London – a role that no-one wanted – immediately after Daniel Sonnex murdered two French students when on probation.
“Sonnex was a serious offender, and at the time the murders happened, he was supervised by a young, inexperienced probation officer with a ridiculous workload of about 120 cases, line managed by an inexperienced temporary senior probation officer and a remote senior manager. It was absolutely awful, it shouldn’t have happened,” he says.
While the Sonnex incident was a result of poor local management of people and resources, rather than budget cuts, for Wilson there is a lesson to be learnt.
“If I can make a link between the Sonnex case and Transforming Rehabilitation – it’s right that from a neutral position I remain optimistic about what may be achieved under TR, but I do have a worry. We are in times of austerity and this government wants more for less, and the new CRCs have a bottom line in relation to costs and profit. In that context, I am worried about the prospects for staff and the future staffing levels and I fear the Sonnex scenario being recreated with inexperienced staff, possibly less trained and qualified than they were before, with larger caseloads, managed and supervised by more remote managers.
“That is my fear. It is no more than a fear – there is no evidence at the moment that that is definitely going to happen, but that would be my fear and I’ve already started a process of drawing ministers’ and others’ attention to that because, by the time it is either disproved or becomes a reality, I won’t be sitting in this chair.”
Wilson plans to step down in February 2016, by which time he thinks the new permanent chief inspector will be in post. At 65, he is looking forward to his retirement. Although he may not be entering any baking competitions, the chief inspector does intend to make the most of his leisure time.
“I’ve got three children, the oldest lives in the States and he and his partner have just had a baby, so part of the plan is to spend more time in California. That will be hard won’t it?” he laughs.
Yet, while this will be his “last full-time senior management or executive position”, he doesn’t plan on leaving the arena completely. “At the beginning, as a young probation officer, there is no doubt I was driven by the belief that probation could help people, and help offenders, to turn their lives around,” he says. “I still absolutely believe that in my heart.”
WILSON ON…
Arriving at the Ministry of Justice to meet interim chief inspector of probation Paul Wilson, one thing is on CSW’s mind. With the sixth season of the BBC’s Great British Bake Off still in full flow, CSW wants to know if the chief inspector – who, bar a five-year stint in the private sector, has spent his 40 year career in probation – has ever met Paul, the prison governor who baked his way into the quarter finals of the show?
“Is he the one with the beard?” Wilson asks, before revealing he has never met the culinary governor. His wife watches the show, but he apparently only catches it from time to time. That’s perhaps unsurprising, given the daunting workload Wilson inherited after stepping into the chief inspector role in February – a post he will remain in while the government searches for a permanent replacement for Paul McDowell, who was forced to resign over criticism of his personal relationship with MoJ outsourcing bidder Sodexo-Nacro.
A veteran in his field, Wilson joined the profession at 21 as a probation officer (“After university, I carried on doing a ‘vacation job’ in catering, but then I met the person who was going to become my wife and she was already a qualified teacher so I thought, I really ought to get a ‘proper’ job”) and has led probation services up and down the country, as well as serving as a non-executive director at the National Offender Management Service.
In his current role, Wilson is not only overseeing a shakeup of the inspectorate’s model, but is also responsible for ensuring the comprehensive Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms maintain probation standards. Introduced in April 2015, the reform programme has seen the privatisation of almost 70% of probation services, splitting offender management between privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the National Probation Service (NPS).
It’s a challenging task, given the apparent unpopularity of the reform programme. In April 2014, probation staff around the country went on strike over the changes and penal reform campaigners have continued to express concerns. “It is absolutely true that the reforms were very unpopular, of course they were – it’s a huge amount of disruption,” Wilson says.
This is picked up in the chief inspector’s annual report – published in August – in which Wilson said there are “significant operational and information sharing concerns across the boundaries of the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies”. However, the report went on to conclude that “transitional” problems could be resolved with “time and continuing goodwill”.
“There are still significant numbers of staff who retain that optimism, and hope that, freed from some of the bureaucracy of the public sector, they will be able to exercise more professional judgement and get more job satisfaction,” Wilson explains.
“For all we have reported on real issues around practice, it is true to say that the wheels are not coming off the probation service. It is withstanding this change process very well indeed and performance for the most part is standing up. Omnishambles this is not.”
When he speaks about the reform programme, Wilson’s tone is generally sanguine. Yet he does accept there have been real challenges in delivering it, and concedes that, in some cases, concerns over privatising offender management are valid. These concerns have been supported by his inspections.
Among the biggest changes are the decision to outsource the majority of cases – CRCs are now responsible for all low-medium risk cases, while the NPS handles the high risk cases – and the move to introduce a payment-by-results framework for CRCs. One campaign group told CSW this framework raises questions about the incentives behind managing caseloads, as there is a risk companies might focus on “easy” cases to ensure payment, or fail to escalate those deemed a “high risk” to the NPS for fear of losing money. Is Wilson worried about these scenarios?
“The idea of perverse incentives has been an issue since payments-by-results was mooted in the coalition government,” Wilson acknowledges. “There is a concern about getting the allocation system right. There are major teething issues around that process – that absolutely cannot be denied – but that’s not a failure of policy or probation instruction, it’s an issue around the time and the priority that practitioners actually have in the heat of the courtroom and the 24 to 48 hour turnaround that follows the court’s decision.”
“We simply can’t know the answer to those questions yet. In my annual report I said that I thought it would be two or three years before the system is settled and the data is reliable enough to make judgements about that sort of thing,” he says. “On social media that was characterised, I think, as me saying: “Well, fingers crossed!” he adds wryly. “It’s not that for a minute, it is just it would be wrong to leap to conclusions at this point in time before the system is anything like mature.”
Likewise, when asked if he believes companies will use the need for commercial confidentiality to block inspection work into key areas of service delivery, the probation watchdog says that, while he does not think it will be a problem, it is too soon to tell.
“I think it has been a reality in one or two sets of circumstances in which the inspectorate has been involved, but as we engage with CRCs, I’m for the most part reassured that the new companies see a bigger picture than that, and are prepared to share what they are doing and their data and information, and will do so into the future,” he says.
“I understand the issue, but I think it’s far too soon to be pessimistic about the way CRCs will respond. Overall, we have to hope everyone invests in the probation system, and sees that, actually, all the organisations are still very much connected. I’m still optimistic about the ability of the whole system to work across the board.”
While Wilson remains hopeful about the success of the reforms, one area he is decidedly less assured about is the impact of any further cuts as a result of the austerity agenda. And while all Whitehall departments and arm’s length bodies are facing spending challenges, Wilson has seen first hand the consequences resource pressures can have on the probation service. In 2009, he was appointed chief probation officer in London – a role that no-one wanted – immediately after Daniel Sonnex murdered two French students when on probation.
“Sonnex was a serious offender, and at the time the murders happened, he was supervised by a young, inexperienced probation officer with a ridiculous workload of about 120 cases, line managed by an inexperienced temporary senior probation officer and a remote senior manager. It was absolutely awful, it shouldn’t have happened,” he says.
While the Sonnex incident was a result of poor local management of people and resources, rather than budget cuts, for Wilson there is a lesson to be learnt.
“If I can make a link between the Sonnex case and Transforming Rehabilitation – it’s right that from a neutral position I remain optimistic about what may be achieved under TR, but I do have a worry. We are in times of austerity and this government wants more for less, and the new CRCs have a bottom line in relation to costs and profit. In that context, I am worried about the prospects for staff and the future staffing levels and I fear the Sonnex scenario being recreated with inexperienced staff, possibly less trained and qualified than they were before, with larger caseloads, managed and supervised by more remote managers.
“That is my fear. It is no more than a fear – there is no evidence at the moment that that is definitely going to happen, but that would be my fear and I’ve already started a process of drawing ministers’ and others’ attention to that because, by the time it is either disproved or becomes a reality, I won’t be sitting in this chair.”
Wilson plans to step down in February 2016, by which time he thinks the new permanent chief inspector will be in post. At 65, he is looking forward to his retirement. Although he may not be entering any baking competitions, the chief inspector does intend to make the most of his leisure time.
“I’ve got three children, the oldest lives in the States and he and his partner have just had a baby, so part of the plan is to spend more time in California. That will be hard won’t it?” he laughs.
Yet, while this will be his “last full-time senior management or executive position”, he doesn’t plan on leaving the arena completely. “At the beginning, as a young probation officer, there is no doubt I was driven by the belief that probation could help people, and help offenders, to turn their lives around,” he says. “I still absolutely believe that in my heart.”
WILSON ON…
...being London’s chief probation officer after the Sonnex case
“The reason I was asked to go and do the job – originally for a few months – was that no-one else wanted it, because it was so tough. My proudest achievement, I think, is that I did enough to make it an attractive job for other very able and talented people after I left. In the space of two years we were able to get trust status, which was the prize at the time.”
...changing the inspection model
“When TR was devised, the deal with the CRCs was that they would be less constrained by old policies and practices. In light of that, the inspection regime had to focus more on outcomes and reoffending rates than it did in the past, where there was more of a concern for quality processes. That’s been an interesting journey for the inspectorate. We have got to the point where we are already piloting our new quality and impact inspection model, and we think we’ve got the right balance: the best of the old, but fit for purpose in relation to the new. There is much less emphasis on ‘have you done this, that and the other to the required standard?’ and more on the question ‘have you made a positive impact on this offender?’ and ‘explain to us how you did it’.”
...what the private sector experience gave him
“There are many people in the public sector who still characterise this new world of outsourcing probation services as ‘public service good, private sector bad’. I mean, that simply has not been my experience of working in the private sector, and working with private sector companies. It is far too simplistic. I think it’s that level of understanding, the ability to explain that good values don’t belong just in one place, that I’ve bought with me, and that has been the most valuable lesson.”
"Paul McDowell, who was forced to resign over criticism of his personal relationship with MoJ outsourcing bidder Sodexo-Nacro."
ReplyDeleteNo, a revisionist, over-simplified mistepresentation. McDowell was appointed by Grayling, and McDowell accepted the appointment, DESPITE both knowing that McDowell was married to a senior Sodexo operational executive directly involved in the CRC scenario. Similarly the McDowells' personal relationship SHOULD have been disclosed & considered as part of the bid scrutiny process when McDowell was head of the UK charity NACRO & signed off on a commercial partnership with his wife's private sector company in making a bid for 6/21 CRCs.
This was carefully lost in the furore over McDowell's appontment, his stepping-down & subsequent employment by a non-Sodexo CRC.
If I were a shareholder I'd wonder what MTC secrets are being shared with Sodexo...
... or as a member of the MoJ Contract Police, I'd be concerned about privateers' concerted efforts to cosy-up & manipulate contracts in a world that is SO commercially sensitive the taxpayer can't be told where £billions of their taxes are disappearing off to, & NO details can be disclosed, despite the requests of the Justice Select Committee.
So let's be clear... there was never any criticism of McDowell's relationship with his wife.
It was the divisive actions of an unfit Justice Secretary & an opportunist that were under scrutiny; the nepotism, the impropriety, the glad-handing, the dishonesty & the pocket-filling greed that was being criticised.
I wonder if Nacro's Council of Trustees were fully aware of the high level McDowell connection when entering a pact with Sodexo? Or if the Charity Commission was consulted to ensure no inappropriate influence was brought to bear or unsuitable arrangements for personal gain, e.g. profiting by way of cash bonuses from the use of the Nacro brand?
DeleteTR was Graylings baby, he even had the gut feelings.
DeleteBut Grayling is IMHO a dirty politition. He is quite happy to lie about anything to get his own way, and he corrupts everything he touches. It's hardly surprising therefore that the people to be found around him, and the companies he does business with are comfortable to deviate from the normal ethical and moral behaviours of decency expected my most people.
He's currently causing chaos at the transport office, continues to lie to MPs and the public, as he did with TR, and attempts to block any challenges to his personal political ideologies by fair means or foul.
Grayling is simply a despot who cares nothing except for his own advancement.
In my view he deserves to be prosecuted, but instead he's just been appointed "species champion" for hedgehogs.
He will no doubt soon develop a scheme where he can exploit these prickly little creatures for his own personal gain, perhaps a tax on hedgehog road crossings, or the privatisation of hedgehog hospitals?
Where ever Graylings been, you'll find a trail of deceit and a murky foul smell of corruption.
Nothing to do with probation but Graylings got everyone up in arms over the railways now.
He needs sacking, and banning from ever being an MP again.
He's just a BAD BAD man.
http://railnews.mobi/news/2017/10/26-grayling-doo-letter-is-unprecedented.html
TRANSPORT secretary Chris Grayling has written to MPs, explaining that contingency plans are being prepared ahead of fresh RMT strikes over DOO next month. He has condemned the RMT’s stance over the issue of safety-critical staff on trains.
DeleteThe RMT has described his letter as ‘unprecedented political interference’ in the long-running dispute about driver-only operation.
The union has called 24-hour strikes on Northern and Merseyrail on 8 November, accompanied by 48-hour walkouts on Greater Anglia, Southern and South Western Railway on 8 and 9 November.
Previous experience suggests that Greater Anglia and Southern will be least affected, but the implications of a conductors’ strike on SWR, which would be the first since the franchise started in August, are not yet clear.
In his letter Mr Grayling says: “The RMT’s action is aimed at deliberately disrupting passengers. I want to assure you that the RMT’s dispute is not about jobs: affected staff have been offered cast iron guarantees by the train companies involved. This dispute is not about money: affected staff have also been offered pay guarantees. And this dispute is not about safety: driver controlled trains have been ruled as safe by the regulator.”
He continues: “I will be taking every step to ensure that as many people as possible can use the railway to get to work, school and important appointments on the RMT’s strike days. Contingency planning is well underway and I will write to you with a fuller outline of plans closer to 8 November.”
His intervention has been met with resistance from the RMT, which described his behaviour as 'damaging and dangerous’, and claimed that the government are ‘driving the current rail disputes for their own politically-motivated reasons’.
The union’s general secretary Mick Cash said: “This letter from Chris Grayling nails down once and for all the core fact that it’s the Government who are imposing Driver Only Operation on the train operators and who are directing the attack on Britain’s train guards from the centre. Instead of allowing normal industrial relations to run their course the train companies are boxed in by central diktat from Chris Grayling and the DfT.
“This unprecedented political interference explains why RMT has been able to reach negotiated settlements over the guards and the method of train dispatch in Scotland and Wales, where responsibility is devolved, but have had the door slammed in our face in England when it comes to any meaningful talks.
“Chris Grayling’s letter shows that the Government are driving the current disputes for their own politically-motivated reasons. That damaging and dangerous behaviour needs to stop right now.”
Train operators and the Rail Delivery Group have already called for new talks in the long-running dispute, which started with strikes on Southern last year, sparking demonstrations by angry commuters, while the executive of ASLEF has reached an agreement with Govia Thameslink Railway over driver controlled operation. The result of a members’ ballot is expected on 8 November.
Analysis
DeleteONE of the core aims of privatising the railway in the 1990s was to transfer operational and financial responsibility to the private sector, but Mr Grayling is now taking the helm in a way which does indeed appear to be unprecedented.
It is hard to see how his gesture will do anything to ease the tensions in this increasingly protracted dispute over whether a second safety-critical member of staff is needed on all trains. The DfT points to services such as Thameslink and its predecessor Midland Electrics, which started in 1982 as DOO, as examples of how single-staffing works. The RMT maintains that the absence of a second safety-critical member of staff poses an unacceptable risk to safety. Alongside its anti-DOO campaign, the union is also opposing Transport for London over the occasional absence of staff on some suburban Underground stations.
What the industry and rail passengers both want is an end to the row, and a return to normal services.
Mr Grayling has provided a short-term message of comfort with his promise of contingency plans, but at a deeper level he may have only turned up the gas a little more under this cauldron of simmering dissent.
Sim Harris
I've just been reading an old article from the Independent from 2015, and it says that one of Working Links shareholders is actually the Department of work and pensions.
ReplyDeleteI was a bit surprised by this given that they've been awarded many contracts to carry out work within the same department.
It made me wonder however whether the Department of Justice could be actually shareholders in the companies carrying out probation work? Maybe that's why they're happy to hand £millions more over even for poor performance?
I'd love to know the answer. Anyone know, or direct where I could look?
'Getafix
Maybe someone at Dept Workhouse & Penury read this:
Deletehttps://shinebidservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/How-to-win-government-contracts-in-the-uk_2017.pdf
co-authored by:
ANNE MCNAMARA DIRECTOR
SIMON PEARCE BID DIRECTOR
KIRSTEN PROCTOR BID DIRECTOR
"This guide is designed to help you win work with government and public
sector buyers. By applying the principles in this is eBook you will learn to
navigate the UK public procurement landscape successfully, find the best
opportunities before others, develop a winning bid strategy, and improve
your success rate for government/public sector contracts."
Chris Grayling, 30/10/13, Hansard: "We cannot contract on a payment-by-results basis with ourselves"
"We cannot contract on a payment-by-results basis with ourselves"
DeleteJust change the payment mechanism then. Simples.
The Justice Sec is the 'golden shareholder' in each & every CRC. So every decision by CRCs has, by virtue of any lack of dissent or active intervention, implicit approval by the Justice Sec. Even the WL/Aurelius arrangement.
DeleteFrom the CRC Governance Handbook:
Delete"2.4 NOMS and the MoJ are required to account for the expenditure of funds provided to CRCs in the form of both contractual payments and start-up assets. The financial arrangements and contract for the CRC will identify how the CRC must work with NOMS and the MoJ to achieve this."