Tuesday 17 April 2018

'Bleak and Exasperating'

One wonders at what point the MoJ and government finally admit that TR has been an unmitigated disaster for probation in England and Wales and urgent action is initiated in order to try and save something from the ashes. Today sees publication of yet another scathing report and accompanying press release from Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation:- 

Third sector organisations not playing expected central role in reformed probation services, says Chief Inspector

Probation reforms have failed to deliver the aim of ensuring that voluntary and third sector organisations play a central role in providing specialist support to offenders, according to Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation.

A new report presents a “bleak and exasperating” picture. Where the third sector is involved, the inspection found the quality of work reasonable overall, but the sector is “less involved than ever in probation services”, despite the eagerness of many dedicated people to work with offenders.

Government contractual arrangements for the involvement of third sector organisations in probation have been burdensome, disproportionate and “off-putting for all,” inspectors found. Some small, local organisations which worked with pre-reform probation trusts have lost the work.

Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms in 2014 created 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to supervise medium and low-risk offenders, the bulk of more than 260,000 people supervised in the community in England and Wales. The HMI Probation report notes that Ministry of Justice statements at the time of reform “gave the impression that there would be a wide array of organisations involved in the delivery of probation services.”

However, in the thematic inspection – Probation Supply Chains – inspectors noted that CRC operating contracts “do not require CRCs to commission specialist services from the third sector or from others, even in those cases where CRCs expressed in bids their intentions to do that. Instead, they contain varied and somewhat vague statements of intent about CRCs developing their supply chains. CRCs who originally expected to use third-sector organisations have told us that they had hoped to have more comprehensive supply chains in place by now, almost four years on.”

Dame Glenys said: “It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around.”

It was envisaged that probation “supply chains” would deliver services including help with finding accommodation and training and education. Inspectors reached key conclusions:

  • The National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for high-risk offenders, “is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected” under Transforming Rehabilitation – for reasons including objecting to the price and doubting the quality.
  • All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ. “Their own lack of stability was driving their relationship” with principal and smaller sub-contractors in the third sector and most were looking for further efficiencies and cutbacks. Supply chains delivering services within the community were “generally small scale, and non-existent in some local areas.” A “noticeable proportion” of pre-2014 contracts with third sector organisations had been discontinued.
  • The Ministry of Justice’s template contract for CRCs – ‘Industry Standard Partnering Agreements’ (ISPA) – was “burdensome, and disproportionate to the value of most” of the third sector services being contracted.
On a more positive note, while inspectors found few unusual, niche or innovative services, they commended a ‘restorative justice’ initiative in Thames Valley. And two CRCs in areas with devolved political powers (Wales and Greater Manchester) had developed models in which the CRCs and NPS “were both contributing knowledge, expertise and resources to influence strategically the provision of local services.”

Overall, however, Dame Glenys said:

“It is an exasperating situation. Third-sector providers remain eager to work in the sector, and we found the quality of their work reasonable overall. Many are providing a more expansive service to individuals than they are paid for. Supply chains are thin, however, and set to get thinner still, as CRCs continue to review and slim down provision. There is no open book policy: we cannot be certain to what extent financial pressures justify a paucity of provision, but it seems very likely that they are largely responsible. As things stand, the future looks bleak for some organisations, and particularly for those individuals who could benefit so much from the services they can provide.”

--oo00oo--

Foreword

The voluntary sector has long delivered specialist services to people under probation supervision, but with the government’s 2014 Transforming Rehabilitation initiative came a new expectation: that the third sector would play a key role in probation services. Almost four years on, this expectation has not been realised. It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around. 

Government has allowed Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) immense freedoms. ‘Black box’ contracts allow CRCs to decide what to offer by way of specialist services. CRCs are generally providing an insufficient range of services. As the National Probation Service (NPS) is, in turn, dependent on specialist services offered for purchase from CRCs, there is a knock-on effect: there is even less on offer to the NPS. 

There are reasons for this. CRC finances have not worked out as intended, and many have had to make difficult choices between one expense or another. CRCs are uncertain about future income, and risk hefty financial penalties for failure to meet contractual targets. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) guidance and controls over subcontracting have been contentious and are perceived to be bureaucratic, making it off-putting for all. Moreover, specialist providers often wish to do more for individuals than the CRC is prepared to pay for. 

NPS managers hanker after commissioning freedoms, and feel disenfranchised. Some are finding circuitous ways to access alternative provision or have at times discouraged purchase from CRCs. Professionals making decisions in each case may sniff at prices, or fear poor-quality provision. These behaviours go against the grain of the probation delivery model, and make CRC provision yet more precarious, but they are to be expected. Probation professionals do not naturally see themselves as purchasers, and do not wish to be. It is contrary to the enduring cultural characteristics and values of the probation service.

It is an exasperating situation. Third-sector providers remain eager to work in the sector, and we found the quality of their work reasonable overall. Many are providing a more expansive service to individuals than they are paid for. Supply chains are thin, however, and set to get thinner still, as CRCs continue to review and slim down provision. There is no open book policy: we cannot be certain to what extent financial pressures justify a paucity of provision, but it seems very likely that they are largely responsible. 

There has never been one body responsible for the stewardship of these specialist organisations and services, but with Transforming Rehabilitation, the dynamics have changed. As things stand, the future looks bleak for some, and particularly for those individuals who could benefit so much from the services they can provide.

Dame Glenys Stacey
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
April 2018

--oo00oo--

This from the Guardian:-

Ex-offenders face bleak future after reforms fail, report says

Ex-offenders trying to turn their lives around face a bleak future, a probation inspector has warned, as ambitious government plans to boost the role of charities and volunteers in the probation service have failed to materialise. Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, described the low involvement of non-profits, charities and voluntary groups in the rehabilitation and supervision of ex-offenders as “an exasperating situation”.

The probation sector in England and Wales was overhauled in 2014 by the then justice secretary, Chris Grayling, who broke up existing probation trusts and replaced them with a public sector service dealing with high-risk offenders and 21 privately run companies that manage low-to-medium risk offenders.

In a report on “probation supply chains”, or the outsourcing of services to a range of providers, the Inspectorate of Probation said Ministry of Justice (MoJ) press releases around 2013 to 2014 “gave the impression” that there would be a wide array of organisations involved in the delivery of probation services. But the inspectorate found that “almost four years on, this expectation has not been realised”. “It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts,” Stacey said.

Grayling’s hopes that third-sector organisations would wholly run some of the community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) were disappointed when the charities and voluntary groups were unable to bid because of the financial guarantees demanded by the government. However, it was still expected that third-sector organisations would provide specialist support – such as bespoke services for women, drug and alcohol abuse or gang membership – through sub-contracts.

But most CRCs have not sub-contracted services to the third-sector owing to their own “financial instability”, the inspectorate found, and many of the contracts in place before the reforms were not renewed. The CRCs told inspectors that the payment-by-results model pushed by Grayling, by which companies are paid depending on whether or not they hit re-offending targets and also face penalties when contract targets are not met, was at the root of their financial insecurity.

Among the specialist services lacking are those relating to gang membership, financial management, discriminatory attitudes and accommodation, the inspectorate found. And when a specialist service is provided, the feedback from ex-offenders was positive, with the assistance making a difference in the lives of two-thirds of offenders, the report said.

“It is an exasperating situation. Third-sector providers remain eager to work in the sector, and we found the quality of their work reasonable overall,” Stacey said. “As things stand, the future looks bleak for some organisations, and particularly for those individuals who could benefit so much from the services they can provide.”

The reforms were a cornerstone of Grayling’s time heading the MoJ. An employee of a charity that works with ex-offenders, speaking anonymously, told the Guardian: 


“The findings in this report are not surprising. While there was undoubtedly a genuine desire for diverse supply chains at the design phase of Transforming Rehabilitation, innovation has been hamstrung by overly prescriptive contract targets which carry heavy penalties but do little to promote desistance [reducing offending], if anything diverting resources away from it. A healthy supply chain with the specialist expertise to support a wide spectrum of needs will invariably cost more than doing everything ‘in house’, yet the drive for efficiencies that underpins Transforming Rehabilitation drastically limits CRCs’ capacity to commission the range of services that their clients require.”

The prisons and probation minister, Rory Stewart, said: 


“As Dame Glenys highlights in this insightful report, there have been challenges facing CRCs and involving the voluntary sector in the delivery of probation services. We now have a more diverse range of probation providers than ever before, and I want to see the voluntary sector play a key role in this. The expertise and commitment of third sector organisations has a crucial part to play in reforming offenders and ultimately keeping the public safe. I have been absolutely clear that I want probation to work better and there is much more to be done – particularly on getting the basics right – and we are working closely with providers to make sure this happens.”

25 comments:

  1. Incoming news from London:-

    "After surviving 3 years of MTCnovo I thought I was unshockable. Yesterday was the first day I have felt ashamed to be working as a probation officer. All offender managers have been instructed to inform their people managers (SPOs in MTCnovo parlance) how many service users report after 7pm and how often. Then we heard rumours of the bombshell - evening accredited groupwork programmes will not be offered by London CRC in the coming weeks/months.

    For any service user sentenced to an accredited Programme Requirement who is in employment, the expectation will be that the offender manager will make an immediate application to the Court for amendment of the Requirement as unworkable. If true, and my sources are reliable, this is truly a cynical cost-cutting exercise. Cynical because if they have any sense they must know that there will be "blow-back" from the Magistracy/Judiciary. They may be forced to back pedal, but in the interim they will save themselves a few more shekels to earn their annual bonuses.

    Offender Managers in London CRC from the 1st May will no longer have face to face contact with our administrators when they move to a central admin hub in Bromley. We were not consulted about this move, it was yet another diktat. The fact that the powers-that-be are looking at how many service users report after 7pm strongly suggest they will close some offices at 7pm but maybe have regional offices for reporting after 7pm?

    I thought the point of TR and the involvement of the private sector was to be "consumer" oriented, providing an improved flexible service compared with the dead hand of the inflexible public sector. Instead I am seeing the dismantling of a once proud service before my eyes like a slow motion car crash. God help us all."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Watch live from 10am our final Transforming Rehabilitation evidence session. We’re hearing from Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector, Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector, Minister RoryStewart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chief-inspector-of-probation-lambasted-by-mps-for-taking-second-job-while-service-in-crisis_uk_5ad5bc54e4b077c89cec667a?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

      Delete
    2. The Chief Inspector of Probation “shocked” MPs when she defended taking on a second job by joking her husband would cook.

      Dame Glenys Stacey continues to be paid her £140,000 salary for heading HM Inspectorate of Probation, despite dropping down to just three days a week.

      Stacey accepted an offer from Environment Secretary Michael Gove to chair the Government’s farming review two days a week. Her salary is being reviewed by ministers.

      But MPs on Parliament’s Justice Select Committee told Stacey the arrangement was “profoundly unsatisfactory” and that she must “reflect” on it.

      It comes as the probation service battles a series of crises, including soaring reoffending rates, a rise in ex-offender homelessness and struggling private probation companies needing a Government bailout to continue functioning.

      Committee chairman Bob Neill, opening the session, asked: “How on earth are you managing to do [both jobs]?”

      Stacey admitted she “had to make some adjustments” and she had chosen to no longer serve as a board member of the Association of Chief Executive or as a council church member in her local community.

      She added: “That still leaves me on occasions working some long days but my husband is enjoying the prospect of learning how to cook, so there are some hidden benefits for me at least.”

      Appearing to boil over with irritation, Neill said the committee was “utterly unconvinced” she could do both jobs, adding: “Dame Glenys, do you understand just how profoundly unsatisfactory we regard your answers?”

      He added: “I’m shocked by what I have just heard and I’m sorry to have to say that to you. Would you like to reflect as to whether it is really appropriate for you to be attempting to do both of these jobs at once?”

      Stacey said she understood MPs were frustrated, but said: “At the moment, I think I am doing both jobs reasonably well.”

      Tory MP Alex Chalk challenged Stacey over her large salary for what was effectively part-time hours.

      “So, that’s more than a head teacher, more than a chief constable, more than a general in the army,” he said. “In fact, it is almost as much as the Prime Minister.

      “Do you really think that that salary is appropriate for someone who is not giving it full-time?”

      Stacey said the government departments were discussing her salary arrangements. “I thought it a matter of them,” she said.

      Labour MP David Hanson also criticised her for appearing to not take the job seriously.

      “There are no additional staffing responsibilities and no additional changes and there are no changes to your pay and terms and conditions,” he said.

      “If this is a serious post as chief inspector, surely it demands five days a week.”

      He went on: “Effectively, two days a week of leadership has been lost to the inspectorate because of your decision to take on a further job with the department of rural affairs.

      “You can see where we are coming from. That doesn’t appear to be acceptable to us as somebody holding the government and the inspectorate to account.”

      Stacey defended her position by saying Justice Secretary David Gauke and Gove “have agreed that it is an appropriate arrangement”.

      Hanson countered: “That doesn’t mean that it is. Just because secretaries of state say it is doesn’t mean we regard it to be the case.”

      He added he was “concerned” Stacey was not prioritising the job amid concerns about probation’s performance standards.

      Hanson added: “Whatever you do at the church council and whatever you do at the weekend is a matter for you, but that is the weekend, it is not the contractual five days a week that you have with the probation service.”

      Delete
    3. Stacey said much of her probation work was carried out by other board members and that she would be back in her full-time post once the farming review had concluded in January, to which Hanson replied: “Should we in January 1 when you have completed the Defra role reduce your role to three days a week if it is being managed so successfully without you?”

      Stacey replied: “No, I would hope that you wouldn’t do that.”

      She added it was not “ideal” and said: “I do appreciate your concern, of course I do, and I did consider the matter carefully and the practicalities of it before accepting the suggestion that I should chair the review and I have put probation first.”

      Stacey also drew ire from parliamentarians for appearing to claim she could do more hours because she was not caring for a young family.

      “I don’t have the commitments that a younger woman might have at home so when needs arise, so for example, should I be appearing before a select committee I will be doing some additional work at the weekend,” she said.

      Labour MP Ellie Reeves said she was mum to a three-year-old and, as an employment lawyer, had represented a string of women who were the victims of maternity discrimination.

      She said: “I think that [statement] very much gives the wrong message that women who have young families may not have as much capacity for work and I think those comments should be very much reflection upon. They are incredibly unhelpful.”

      Stacey said she would reflect her decision to accept a second role.

      “I can’t stress how strongly that the committee is concerned about the signal this sends as to the importance of an independent and strong inspectorate that has got to be hands on.”

      Delete
  3. In the light of the many reports, whether official, anecdotal or whistleblower, let us be totally & brutally clear what the TR project has led to. It's not - and was never - about the provision of an effective service; its not about the rehabilitation of those sent to work with probation staff by the Courts, either directly or via prison; and its not about having a skilled professional workforce.

    It is THIS:

    "All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ."

    Accountancy, NOT accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An appalling chapter in the history of the British Criminal Justice System and in UK politics. Disgraceful not only because it happened but because it took so many ignorant people to undermine the existing professional organisation. They were warned again and again but wanted their nose in the trough without any comprehension of what was at stake. Carter, Wheatley, Spurr and the King Rat himself, Failing Grayling - all complicit in the debacle and compromised by the obvious inadequacies of Prison Service management. Right wing thinking revealed again for what it is; concrete thinking, prejudicial and, fundamentally, stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "For any service user sentenced to an accredited Programme Requirement who is in employment, the expectation will be that the offender manager will make an immediate application to the Court for amendment of the Requirement as unworkable."

    Isn't that private corporations directing how the courts sentence?

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  6. That is certainly how it will be perceived and will spell the end of accredited programmes in London.

    Or maybe that is what they want?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The courts already have very little confidence in probation services for the adequate provision of community sentences.
      This can only damage that lack of confidence even further.

      Delete
  7. Reading Jim’s comments about the HMIP Inspector at 12:18 and 12:20. Claiming a full time wage for a part time role... tut tut. Probably thought nobody would notice. That Dame Glenys Stacey is well shady. She obviously believes men can’t cook and young mothers can’t manage full time employment. She well suited to inspecting pig stys, buy what the hell is she doing inspecting probation?

    Add that to her Wikipedia page!!
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenys_Stacey

    ReplyDelete
  8. Government's chief probation inspector utterly savaged for refusing to do her £142,000 job full-time

    Dame Glenys Stacey - who's paid almost as much as the PM - was slammed for claiming she can hold down two jobs more easily than a younger woman

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/governments-chief-probation-inspector-savaged-12377450

    ReplyDelete
  9. There are 100s of MPs who are Ministers as well as MPs. Hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get back in yer box Glenys, you’re paid £140,000 to do a full time job you’re not doing!

      Delete
    2. "Stacey defended her position by saying Justice Secretary David Gauke and Gove “have agreed that it is an appropriate arrangement”.

      A previous SoS for justice and the current SoS for justice have agreed to reduce the probation inspectorates duties from full time to part time.
      Maybe Gauke should have some questions to answer given the chaotic mess that probation services are. Or perhaps, just perhaps, the less time the inspector spends on the job, the less failings shes likely to uncover to report on? Just perhaps.

      Delete
    3. Yes a very “appropriate arrangement” for her bank balance!

      Delete
    4. Is she being paid more for the farming job or is her salary increasing? I am not defending the idea that an inspectors job can be done in three days but, for the last decade, I have seen time and time and time again roles being redefined across broader and broader areas e.g. an SPO for one AP all of a sudden being asked to cover 3 or more, An ACO goes sick and every other ACO has to cover their duties. SPO for one Court in a County being asked to cover ALL courts in a County. Doubling the workload of an employee without increasing their salary has become fairly routine over recent years, hasn't it? If GS is asked to do these jobs BY HER EMPLOYERS, why is she the one being pilloried for accepting it?

      Delete
    5. I’m sure we could apply the same protections to the concentration camp guards that were “asked to do these jobs by their employers”. Crude comparisons aside, she is being “pilloried” for using the time she is paid to do her own job on doing a different job that does not involve the responsibility of HMIP or her HMIP role. To top it off she’s excused her actions with smugness and sarcasm.

      Delete
  10. Or maybe they are sabotaging her for exposing the utterly disgusting robbery of the public purse that is today's Probation Service. She is bringing unwanted attention and they may want her gone! A puppet would be more suitable to a Conservative Government capitalism regime. Better the devil ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She’s currently doing her own “robbery of the public purse”!

      Delete
    2. “Yet she is now also leading a review of farm inspections for Tory Michael Gove, taking up to two days a week.”

      - sounds like she is already a “puppet suitable to a Conservative Government”!

      Delete
  11. I don’t think it’s just the money, it was also her comments;

    Dame Glenys, in her 60s, openly admitted "it isn't ideal" but boasted that on the upside, her husband is now "learning how to cook".

    Yet she added: "My husband is enjoying the prospect of learning how to cook! So there are some hidden benefits for me at least."

    And she said: "Of course I don't have the commitments a younger woman might have at home and so on.

    "So when the needs arise, I may be doing extra work at the weekends."

    Furious Labour MP Ellie Reeves blasted Dame Glenys' comments as "incredibly unhelpful" to working mums.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shooting the messenger Dame Glyn is a women with integrity. No bombing other countries no stealing bedroom tax no universal credit scandals disability attacks or evicting British nationals in a row about windrush . Tories have nothing to shout about Dame G is just showing them the truth of what they have done toxic parasites tories.

      Delete
    2. Actually forcing poor Mr Stacy to cook and clean while she’s off furthering her career, sounds like very controlling behaviour to me!

      Delete
  12. "when the needs arise, I may be doing extra work at the weekends."

    Well fuck my boots, Dame Glenys, what a martyr to the cause you are. On £140K a year & they expect you to do a bit of 'extra work at weekends'? Nah, tell 'em to fuck off & get yourself to the ENO or the National Theatre, or down the garden to prune a few roseheads.

    ReplyDelete