TR Must Be Reversed

As we await the result of the Napo General Secretary election, it's probably worth reflecting on where things stand in light of last weeks Select Committee report and the head of steam building for reversing TR. This from Sunday's Guardian:-

The Guardian view on privatising probation: ideology over facts

Chris Grayling was a justice minister who preferred to keep faith in privatisation even when his changes were failing some of the most vulnerable in our society. He ought to be accountable

In 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.

Probation 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.

--oo00oo--

The editorial prompted quite a spirited response from senior retired colleagues:-  

Probation service sacrificed on altar of Tory privatisation

Retired chief probation officers, among others, respond to the crisis affecting the National Probation Service

The current crisis (Privatising probation has been a disaster. Will the Tories ever learn?, 25 June) has a long series of antecedents. Chris Grayling’s catastrophic changes were ultimately made possible by the erosion of an ethical commitment to public service. Prior to the 2010 election, the Blair government’s instrumental approach to supervision in the community, its endorsement of the introduction of “independent providers” and its “tough on crime” etc mantra did little other than fill prisons.

The then Probation Service’s values of “advise, assist and befriend” were viewed as Dickensian and the social work qualification for probation officers was ended by the then home secretary, Jack Straw. This was all despite your correct assertion that “challenging relationships are the key to rehabilitation”. Crime can never be tackled through technical controls and contracts alone. The driving force has to be value driven. We have to face the fact that crime causation is a fraught topic without a complete scientific answer. However, it is clear that gross social inequality, poor relationships and damaged families play a very significant role. The response to this requires a renewed Probation Service, accountable to the public, that manages offenders in the community with care, compassion and realism.
Colin McCulloch
Deputy chief probation officer, Middlesex Probation Service 1994-2001

It is now 30 years since I retired from my proud and privileged position as a chief probation officer of 20 years. During that time, with the enlightened support from home secretaries of both main parties, the service established itself as a model for other countries in developing community-based, non-custodial penalties. Probation was respected by politicians and the courts as a humane and enterprising service prepared to embrace new methods and challenges. Often derided by those who talked tough and advocated harsh prison sentences, it moved steadily to a more central position in the criminal justice system. New entrants brought the professional skills of social work training but a robust system remained rooted in the confidence of personal relationships and trust between officer and offender. Probation had its own distinctive character. It was one of hope and a realistic faith that with tenacity and in valuing the positive qualities of even the apparently most hardened offenders we could influence for the good.

Over the years a number of independent reports helped to shape criminal justice policy. Has the time come, with prisons in crisis and a lack of imaginative political thinking, for a commission to assess what may be needed to develop a system able to tackle the complex challenges of criminal behaviour? That would take time but the quick fixes of political ideology result in the kind of disasters of Grayling’s ill considered policy. As with much else, the culture of public service has been sacrificed on the altar of privatisation.
Michael Day
Ludlow, Shropshire

As noted in your report on the justice committee’s findings re Chris Grayling’s “transforming rehabilitation” legislation (22 June), the committee recommend that the Ministry of Justice “consider fresh alternatives to such reforms”. One of their concerns related to the compulsory 12-month post-sentence supervision for short prison sentences and the recommendation “to consider getting rid of this requirement” as it “lacks flexibility to meet the varying needs of offenders”. In the case of women offenders, subject to post-release supervision by community rehabilitation companies, over 2,000 women were recalled to prison for “non compliance” in the three years up to 2017. Studies have shown that many women offenders have suffered quite chaotic lifestyles before entering custody and many will return to the community with these problems still outstanding. It is, therefore, not surprising that the non-compliance figures/returns to custody are so high.

Criminal justice legislation is riddled with “unintended consequences”. Prior to transforming rehabilitation legislation, no such cases of non-compliance would have occurred. Surely a return to custody in cases where no further offences have been committed is fundamentally flawed. The requirement for compulsory 12-month supervision for short-term women offenders needs to be abandoned.
Howard Thomas
Chief probation officer North Wales 1989-96

Probation workers successfully grappled for years with trying to meet government targets, deliver a quality service for offenders and in so doing contribute towards public protection and services for families and victims of serious crime.

Prior to privatisation, each of the 35 probation areas was rated as “good” or “outstanding” by the government’s own monitoring. That was not good enough for Chris Grayling. His ideological desire for privatisation flew in the face of logic and common sense, yet “Grayling’s folly” was inexplicably pandered to by Cameron and Osborne. None of them is involved now but public and privatised probation workers have to daily contend with the mess they hatched. Other than a few chancers hiding behind acronyms or faux logos of privatised companies, there are no winners from this fiasco.

For the sake of public protection, for services to families and victims, for a cohesive criminal justice system and for a Probation Service whose internal communication is not daily thwarted by bureaucracy, it must be wholly brought back into the public sector.
Mick Gough
Retired senior probation officer, Stoke on Trent

It’s very easy to say “We told you so” and to express our anger and frustration at the outcome of the privatisation of part of the probation service, and the sidelining of the voluntary sector, but what else can we do? Sussex Pathways, a small charity, provides mentors for people returning to Sussex after imprisonment and, surprise surprise, the likelihood of reoffending on release is reduced by something like 56%. The mentee works with his mentor on his own release plan – being realistic about his personal situation – for a couple of months before release and is met at the gate on the day that the prison releases him. The stupidity of asserting that a tick box or a phone call can deal with the complexities of a person’s return to the community is unfathomable. What we do works. It costs less than £1,000 per person per year, as against £40,000 for return to prison. Enough said?
Margaret Carey
Chair of board, Sussex Pathways