I have said it before on here but I think that one of the catastrophic mistakes of the TR debacle was the almost instant removal of the entire top tier of management across Probation by which I mean CEOs, Board Chairs, ACOs and SPOs. What this did was to remove the corporate memory of generations of practitioners and managers who understood the complexities of working with offenders IN THE COMMUNITY. The Prison Service managers who appear to have been universally 'dropped in' to manage parts of the CRCs had no insight into the complex relationships between offender, agency, sentencers and the community. In short, they didn't understand the environment in which they were operating.
Any effort to regroup is going to be made that much more difficult by the fact that many of those managers have now retired and those who have not have moved on to other things. I know many former managers who would not go back for many reasons. Firstly, having been treated so badly once, they do not want to put themselves in harms way again. Secondly, and this is a real deal-breaker, the NPS will not allow a newly recruited employee start at anything other than the bottom of the scale. This means that a manager at the top of the scale in 2015 would be expected to start at the bottom of the scale. Having had the piss taken once, no-one is likely to want to allow it to happen a second time.
The damage Grayling, Spurr, Wheatley, Carter and all the other imposters have done is absolutely catastrophic because they have cut the head off the body. All the blood transfusions and organ replacements are going to fail because the head has been cut off. I think they are going to have to start again.
*****
Some got financially rewarded or knighthoods so would not want them back. They helped the TR process along.
*****
I was not a manager but had diligently developed a decade and a half of experience, know how and demonstrated good performance. I left a CRC, having become disillusioned with their incompetence and sliding values, and decided to focus my talents elsewhere. I cannot see that I will ever work for a CRC and neither will I take a slap in the face from NPS and be asked to start afresh on the pay scale or even below the point that I left. TR has been a near disaster on so many levels. I am glad I left and I am enjoying my new profession but dread the TR type revolution will follow me there. I see no let up from the Government's ideology of revolutionising important public services and detrimentally so in my experience.
*****
Of course there were those who were more heavily involved as things developed but senior management of trusts would have had no realistic option of not engaging at all with the process. I also know that many of them were as critical of TR in public as the unions were. The bulk of those of us who got financially 'rewarded' would have much preferred to stay put and continue with the careers they had loved and invested in for decades.
*****
Whilst I accept some staff at higher management level were excellent with strong sense of values I dispute that they represented such a crucial "head" of the Probation world. I think we were closer to the WW1 lions led by donkeys analogy. For years there was far too much passivity or acceptance of rubbish from NOMs and MoJ by ACOP etc. Not enough representation of what Probation [was] about but acceptance of others priorities. It's the staff that are key in this organism and thousands have been kicked out or left because they were made to feel unwelcome. We have lost huge talent, experience, creativity and passion for what Probation is truly about. Less about the pseudo-science of "risk management" and more about valuing people, understanding/interpreting what underlies angry voices, recognising strengths and helping people access them so as to move into non offending/re-integration etc. Losing that swell of grassroots energy and commitment is what is horrendous.
*****
Fascinating how this particular set of Tories have been overtly & roundly slated by all-party committees examining their 'flagship' policies, e.g. austerity, TR & Universal Credit. And yet... Liz Truss denies we've experienced austerity, just a "period of readjustment", IDS describes the NAO report as "shoddy" whilst the Govt's response to the JSC criticisms is "but 40,000 are receiving support who wouldn't have otherwise."
The deluded fantasists continue to wreck everything they touch - destroying the lives of millions with their vicious, spiteful, self-serving ideology whilst wasting £billions of taxpayer money. Grayling - & those who colluded with his stupidity - should be brought to book in a courtroom for the civil & fiscal crimes he's committed, e.g. lives lost, lives ruined, careers ended.
*****
It's rare for any politician to see accountability as a restraint on what they do – accountability is for the little people, the underlings. It is astonishing that the MoJ riposte to this TR report is that 40,000 are benefiting through the extension of supervision and support.
There is a knee-jerk rejection of returning probation to pubic ownership which basically worked well for a hundred years. Instead various interest groups want to improve TR – even though the sensible act would be to end this mad experiment. It is amazing how in such a short time the scorched earth policies of TR have eradicated probation infrastructure and got rid of experienced staff. I agree that nothing will change, probation will stagger on and things will get worse.
*****
Yes Grayling et al should be brought to book but for me the priority has to be the start of restoring probation to a workable model. If I were GS (and never will be) I would call a special NAPO conference to discuss a strategy on how we respond to this, an agreed roadmap of what we do, how and when. This is too important to leave to those numptees on the top table. It's an amazing opportunity to re-engage the membership.
*****
It's not enough. Rory Steward states 40k more offenders are now benefiting from probation services because of TR. I think he should be asked to explain just what those "benefits" are, and just how much is being paid to provide those "benefits". Unfortunately, today's report is covered by the Guardian and the Independent and has a mention on the BBC news website.
The whole issue will be buried under the June Brexit summit, Trumps State visit, and Boris dodging his vote on Heathrow runways on Monday. The issue needs to be kept alive and needs media attention or its yesterday's news already. Personally, I think that can only be achieved by hanging the whole mess around Graylings neck. He deserves it too. That gives rail unions ammunition for their own cause by raising the complete chaos caused in the probation service already by Grayling. Grayling is the man in the news right now, and I think he may be there for a while, and the opportunity that provides needs exploiting.
*****
I suspect CRC’s will now fold and the only option will be to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I wish this report had named all the Probation Chief Officers and CEO’s that helped implement TR and should be today hanging their heads in shame. This includes those that received OBE’s and MBE’s, those that received huge redundancy and retirement packages, those now employed by HMIP, the Parole Board and CRC’s, those now lecturing in university, and those the Probation Institute made Fellows.
*****
A summary analysis provided by Russell Webster (well worth signing up to his work, always a balanced and thoughtful writer on Criminal Justice matters).
'Perhaps the most important component of the Committee’s report is the demand for a review which looks at alternative models. The MoJ has been working on this for well over a year now and the latest rumours to reach me suggest an even more fragmented and complex system is being constructed out of the ashes of TR. While it seems clear that the role of private Community Rehabilitation Companies will diminish, it is far from clear where the responsibility for the offender management of low and medium risk offenders will sit. Whatever solution is proposed, surely the MoJ must seek to create a more coherent structure than we have now.'
*****
"The splitting of probation services between the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies has complicated the delivery of probation services and created a 'two-tier' system. Although we heard about joint working going on at a local and national level, problems in the relationship remain."
I've fucking had more than enough of this fence-sitting, equivocal don't-rock-the-boat bollocks. TR was a scam; a politically motivated scam which included the aim of eroding the social work ethic from probation, the last bastion of compassion in a penal system run by neo-fascist pseudo-religious bullies. The BlueLabour government had already opened all of the doors, answering the BlairWeasel's prayers, while the last 10 years of 21st Century Tories ("the nazti party") has hammered home the nails in the coffin of humanity. Every middle-class fuckwit has fallen for it; every xenophobe has voted for it; and every greedy pig has profited from it.
Grayling is without emotion or empathy, the perfect sledgehammer to crack the various tricky 'nuts' of benefits, justice & transport - with a side order of brexit.
It's been said already by many other commentators, including those whose lives have been more directly impacted than mine, that the costs of this travesty of a social experiment perpetrated by charlatans, fraudsters & other vile collaborators stretch far beyond the £BILLIONS of wasted public funds... those costs reach into our communities & include no more resources for women, children & families; they effected the endings of the careers of dedicated professionals; they led to the loss of lives in prisons, whether through abuse by others or self-harm; the loss of family members - of mums & dads & children & partners; the loss of a professional workforce with experience & knowledge of working with damaged, difficult & criminally active individuals; the loss of any meaningful interventions with people who wanted & valued that work... the list is boundless...
And all of these things were predicted in advance, were warned about - but were DISMISSED, RUBBISHED & IGNORED.
This wanton vandalism of public service has parallels with the arrogance, the ignorance & the greed that characterised Grenfell - when the informed warnings & fears of the residents were ignored by the smug, the brazen & the powerful. No-one is ever going to be brought to book. And the best the JSC can do is recommend a review by February 2019? Sorry, Bob. You did well, you & your colleagues fought hard, but this isn't good enough. Those responsible need to be held publicly accountable and punished for their deceitful, self-aggrandising actions in imposing TR.
*****
I am not following this in any length other than to thank you. A long time since we read a decent well written and response. You have captured it all and although the report is not looking to hang the idiots soon it has started the end. Sadly the moron at the top of the Union will not have the raw abilities to drive forwards what is needed to get the change right. Instead we will have to pay to watch them think they are there to help make a new service. Someone like you needs to stand for a place in office and I would vote for you on that statement. Great piece.
I left prison on licence literally days before TR came in and got zero help from probation. I have spoken to many others who left prison after TR and all they got in terms of help,if they even got that, was a leaflet. In other words all that separated us was a piece of paper. Zero help before TR and zero help after TR apart from the useless bit of paper. Doesn't say much for the alleged gold standard service
ReplyDeleteThe guys being released from prison on HDC are being sold a dud, they are put forward for BASS but can end up 50 miles away from their local area and it is causing untold problems. Firstly, they've no community links, secondly one of the houses in my area isn't even in a community, it is a joke!! All prison is bothered about is getting people out, they don't care where to etc. I've a guy who's had to start afresh with dole, doctor and doesn't know a soul where he is and would rather have stayed in prison, infact releasing him to BASS has set him back ie he's buying his diazepam off the internet as he needs 10mg and new doctor he's registered with is only giving him 2mg which isn't enough, he's also back on the bottle after about 6 weeks clean, he's just given up. Thanks Grayling!! Anyway Stonham no longer look after BASS as the contract is held by NACRO does anyone have any information on this as we're hoping they may have access to more accommodation. Finally, no staff support at BASS address all they're interested in is the housing benefit.
Delete50 miles? The current record in my office for distance from home area to BASS address is 230 miles...
DeleteThat's ridiculous, they're meant to stay within their county of origin. Useless scheme.
Delete202.1 miles is my record, though upon release they refused to authorise the travel warrant and the receiving office, the details unknown to them, asked for recall.
DeleteI have heard tell of two instances where the homeowner said NO, report went back and the particular Prison is not even looking at the report let alone boarding the request, and the OM gets a call asking for reporting instructions as the release on HDC has been approved.
To receive no service is obviously poor though the trouble with the word "help" is that that means different things to different people. You should definitely have known who your Officer was and that they were there to offer support. Sadly that doesn't translate into securing immediate accom or even ensuring your benefits are accessible if you were claiming as we can't make those things happen though a good Probation Officer should be pulling out all stops. Advocacy is a key role for POs in my opinion especially in supporting clients after release. It is incredibly frustrating that its taken till now for a Govt Committee to ask for access to Benefits asap following release.Securing accom for single men is nightmarish. I'm amazed not more re-offend and return to custody as outside world is so unwelcoming and unresponsive.
ReplyDelete"To receive no service is obviously poor though the trouble with the word "help" is that that means different things to different people."
DeleteAnd there lays perhaps the most significant problem probation has.
Not only does "help" mean different things to different people, but actually "probation" means different things to different people. Probation has an identity problem caused by political interference, any policy making by people with no real understanding, such as Michael Spurr and NOMS.
I take the view that probation should be 'aligned' with the CJS and not be an actual "part" of it, much the way social Work operates.
TR may have split probation physically, but it's been divided by perceptions of identity and purpose long before TR came along.
(Thats an observation, not a criticism.)
'Getafix
The Yorkshire Post is engaged in a pretty strong campaign to get rid of Grayling. I hope they're successful.
DeleteIt's published this letter today, and perhaps some readers on here might also like to read it.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/yp-letters-emasculation-of-probation-service-by-chris-grayling-led-to-more-offending-1-9218865
'Getafix
I think that is a pretty good analysis 'Getafix at 11.38 - I wrote more about the incremental steps to the debacle that was underway by October 1992 when the CJA 1991 was implemented and the status of the probation order was changed from a type of conditional discharge (as an aside thereby meaning - that for most jobs the conviction did not need to be declared by job seekers after the pbn order was completed) - to sentence of the court - also incrementally probation officers became State Executives, rather than officers of the court.
DeleteI wrote about this here a few days ago but cannot now find the more detailed piece to link.
In short most of the damage was done once Probation Trusts were in place and certainly the setup for disaster was done once the Labour Government passed the 2007 Offender Management Act.
Grayling was also not totally responsible and is often, effectively scapegoated, as it was HMUKParliament that refused to stop the “Transforming Rehabilitation” programme - all the pieces for it to stop the disaster were in place (I think it was Feb 2014) but the House of Commons voted down the amendments to the Offender Rehabilitation Act and then the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Justice Ministers were able to carry out their orders to the MOJ Civil Servants that led to the split and part privatisation.
Our opposition was mere ineffective bleating.
'Getafix - This letter is from Stan Hardy, former toady Chair of the West Yorkshire Probation Board and former Chair of the Probation Association who said nothing publicly during the impostion of TR.
DeleteMy original post was referring to Mr Grayling not Mr Hardy. I don't like opportunist bashing of people just because they didn't do something and even because they did. We are all players, play the ball please otherwise we just keep crying foul. Otherwise a dedicated JB blog fan. Getagrip x (not Getafix).
DeleteThanks again Stan.
DeleteA Service User came into the office and stated don't know who my Probation Officer is had 3 since the start of my order and I now have a 4th... not seen anyone in 3 months... so popped in, put a note on the system as I don't want to be recalled... this must be a Sh***t Company to work for as everyone keeps leaving... sums it all up in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteyes, I've been duty and come across people dropping in like this or sometimes they phone if they're lucky enough to be able to get through.
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/24/the-guardian-view-on-privatising-probation-ideology-over-facts
ReplyDeleteIn any ideology faith replaces sight. Blind obeisance means giving up on evidence, on the ability to learn and to correct one’s course and instead be willing to look like a fool. This was the approach the government took when it privatised chunks of the probation service in 2015 – saying it would inject dynamism, deliver improved outcomes and that contracts would link the arms of the criminal justice service. This was firmly contradicted last week by parliament’s justice committee which issued a scathing report on the reforms, saying they had failed to deliver promised improvements and MPs doubted they ever would. Left to look asinine is Chris Grayling, the justice secretary behind the changes.
ReplyDeleteProbation services are meant to oversee the rehabilitation and resettlement of prisoners. Yet the committee found the impact on reoffending rates has been “disappointing”. The much-hyped, enhanced role for voluntary organisations has not only not materialised – the sector’s involvement has actually decreased. The basic design is flawed. The categorisation of its 264,649 offenders (90% of them men) as either low, medium or high risk makes no allowance for the fact that levels of risk can change. The justice department negotiated the contracts poorly, and has had to revisit them and top up funding as a result. A “through the gate” service that promised to help former prisoners reintegrate turned out to mean that everyone would get a leaflet. Morale is at an all-time low.
That the whole sorry project was embarked upon before two pilot schemes were even complete was reckless. It is also a tell-tale sign that the ideas were driven by ideology rather than evidence. Though he tactfully refrains from hammering the point too hard, committee chair Bob Neill cannot help but echo the finding of probation inspector Dame Glenys Stacey, whose most recent report declared that the state-run part of the service works better. That Mr Neill is a Conservative and a criminal barrister, who presumably takes no political satisfaction from this, only makes the situation more awkward for the current government.
Supportive, challenging relationships are the key to rehabilitation. The government’s changes led to a situation in which supervision was reduced to a tick-box exercise, meetings replaced by phone calls. Reoffending rates remain stubbornly high, with all the risk to the public that entails, while prisons are packed. Since one of the report’s findings is that confidence in non-custodial sentences has collapsed, partly due to a lack of contact between probation contractors and the courts, the reforms have made a bad situation worse. Then there are the offenders themselves, many of whom are extremely vulnerable and at least a tenth of whom leave prison not knowing where they will spend the next night.
It does look like the state-run National Probation Service is more effective than that delivered by the private sector. Ministers warn another reorganisation will mean more chaos, but it’s extremely hard to see how, if the current contracts are cancelled or contractors go bust, a new set of contracts will be any better. Since they are more expensive to manage (£5.1m) than the prisons inspectorate (£3.5m), hiring more lawyers to manage them is not the answer. The obvious solution is to take the service back in-house. That “payment by results” and competition at all costs remain official doctrine when ministers are rewarded for failure breeds cynicism of the most corrosive kind. Mr Grayling must be held accountable, his failings consigned to the past tense.