Here we have one of the first considered responses to the news that TR is to be given a decent burial and it's from Clinks' who have have been quick off the mark both with a press release and a 'starter for ten' on the consultation:-
Ministry of Justice responds to Clinks’ call for an open consultation on the future of probation
Clinks welcomes today's consultation announcement on the future of probation. Our research on the voluntary sector's engagement in Transforming Rehabilitation shows that our sector is under represented, under pressure and under resourced and calls for the Ministry of Justice to openly consult on the purpose and structure of probation.
The government’s proposals recognise Clinks’ findings that charities in probation supply chains have had to adapt services or subsidise them with other charitable funds, undermining their quality and sustainability. Our research highlighted confusion about what should be funded by probation which is causing disinvestment in voluntary sector services from other sources. We therefore welcome the proposal for future probation contracts to be more clearly focused on core offender management functions and delivering the standards the courts require.
We particularly welcome the Ministry of Justice's intention to set out a clearer role for the voluntary sector and better facilitate its involvement in the design and delivery of the wider services that support rehabilitation and resettlement. These services are often distinct from the role of statutory probation to deliver the sentence of the court, but provide essential support to ensure that individuals can complete that sentence and transform their lives.
The consultation acknowledges that the current system has presented challenges for the voluntary sector, despite the central role that was outlined in the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. The sector will need assurances that the lessons of the current system will be learnt. We hope that this consultation signals the start of a genuine co-design process for future commissioning and partnership arrangements between probation services and the voluntary sector.
Clinks’ Chief Executive Officer, Anne Fox, said:
"It is timely for the Ministry of Justice to take the decision to terminate current contracts in 2020 and take steps to stabilise current arrangements. Research from Clinks and others indicates that probation services, and the voluntary sector's role in them, are currently unsustainable and not able to deliver to the quality we would like to see.
"Looking to the future, this is an opportunity to address serious limitations in the current system and ensure that the voluntary sector’s knowledge and skills are properly utilised in support of the high quality probation services needed. We will however need to be confident that the final proposals adequately address the current problems in the system and do not represent tweaking around the edges. We look forward to working with the Ministry of Justice to ensure this is not the case."
--oo00oo--
TREXIT? WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF PROBATION SERVICES?
Today the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced an eight-week public consultation on the future of probation services. An open consultation on the future purpose and structure of probation was one of the key recommendations from Clinks' TrackTR research on the voluntary sector's involvement in Transforming Rehabilitation and we therefore warmly welcome this announcement.
While a public consultation on this subject is positive in and of itself, in this blog I will take a closer look at the MoJ's proposals and examine how different they truly are to the current system. Do they represent ‘TR-exit’ or is this more a case of ‘TR-lite’?
INVOLVEMENT OF THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR
Our research shows that the voluntary sector is under represented, under pressure and under resourced in the delivery of probation. It is reassuring to see the government recognise this in their consultation document. They also acknowledge our findings that charities in supply chains have had to adapt services or subsidise them with other charitable funds, undermining their quality and sustainability.
In order to improve the quality of services the Ministry of Justice is proposing that future probation contracts should be more clearly focused on “core offender management functions” and “delivering the standards that the courts require”. The proposals state that future arrangements will be much clearer about the services probation providers are required to deliver, where they may seek to commission, and where they should seek to influence the delivery of other local services. This is welcome and should help to address the confusion about what could and should be funded by probation, which our research found was leading to disinvestment in voluntary sector services from other sources.
They also state an intention to set out a clearer role for the voluntary sector and better facilitate its involvement in the design and delivery of probation services. This is particularly welcome. As the proposals rightly acknowledge, the type of support required to stop an individual offending varies from person to person. In many cases the underlying causes of offending are complex - homelessness, unemployment, mental ill health, substance misuse - and require additional specialist support - support which the voluntary sector has a proud history of providing alongside probation services, long before Transforming Rehabilitation was even a twinkle in Chris Grayling's eye.
There is, though, a potential contradiction and risk in the language used in the proposals. Describing offender management functions as the “core” of probation risks interpretation that this is also the core of rehabilitation and resettlement. In many cases, what is core to supporting a person's desistance is far more complex. The need for services that respond to that complexity must remain central in the development of these proposals, as well as consideration of how probation can secure access to them. It will be vital, as the new contracts are developed, to ensure that these additional but nonetheless essential services are properly enabled to support offender management.
The consultation itself does recognise this and asks how the MoJ can better engage voluntary sector providers in the design and delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services for people in the community. It is welcome that the MoJ is asking this question openly of the voluntary sector and recognises the value of co-designing commissioning and partnership working arrangements. They briefly set out some potential future models for this - such as separate frameworks or dynamic purchasing systems at national and regional levels - but the detail is lacking. Given the experience of many organisations under the current system, as well as recent experiences of the commissioning of families services and the current education contracts commissioning process, significant assurances will be needed by many in the voluntary sector that the lessons of the past will be learnt and applied.
The proposals also involve reducing the number of contract package areas from 21 to 10. It will be essential that consideration is given to the impact this might have on contract size, voluntary sector involvement and the provision of specialist and localised services.
There is also little attention given to those voluntary sector organisations who are in current supply chains and will inevitably be asking what all this means for them and what transition arrangements will be in place for their contracts. Clinks has been advised that organisations in this position should discuss this with the relevant Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). However, we would also be keen to know of the challenges and issues that you are encountering.
OTHER KEY PROPOSALS
In addition to setting out plans for working more closely with partners and involving the voluntary sector, the proposals include a range of significant changes to both how probation services are delivered and how they are contracted.
We will be publishing a full briefing on the proposals in the coming days but for now here’s a summary:
Contracts
Current CRC contracts will be terminated 18 months early. A competition for new contracts will be launched early next year and new CRC contracts will be in place by autumn 2020.
The number of contract package areas will be reduced from 21 to 10, making CRCs and the National Probation Service (NPS) co-terminus in order to drive better integration. They will be managed by a single Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service leader responsible for joining up services and working with stakeholders.
Future contracts will pay providers to deliver core services while retaining incentives for innovation and performance.
The key performance outcomes and indicators that providers should be judged against will be explored and HM Inspectorate Probation will be supported to implement its new framework.
Partnerships
Options will be explored for the commissioning of rehabilitation services to promote engagement and collaboration with local partners and facilitate greater voluntary sector involvement
Police and Crime Commissioners will be engaged to consider how they can play a greater role in shaping rehabilitation services and improving collaboration with local services.
Delivery
Minimum standards will be introduced which specify the form and frequency of contact between offenders and responsible officers
Post-sentence supervision will be reviewed to ensure it is proportionate to each offender’s sentence and rehabilitative needs
Circumstances for transfer of cases between CRCs and the NPS will be reviewed to take into account the dynamic nature of risk
The quality of advice to the court will be improved so that it better informs sentencing decisions
The range and quality of services delivered as part of rehabilitation activity requirements will be defined and embedded in future contracts and service levels
A protocol will be tested in five areas in England to increase the use of community sentences with drug, alcohol or mental health treatment requirements
Options for how the particular needs and vulnerabilities of different cohorts of offenders, including those with protected characteristics, will be explored
The data collected and published on offenders’ protected characteristics will be improved.
WALES
While criminal justice is not devolved to the Welsh government, prison and probation services are configured slightly differently in Wales and many related policy areas such as health, housing, social welfare and education are devolved. As the consultation highlights, this presents a fundamentally different delivery landscape in Wales and distinct partnership arrangements already exist to join up the delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services.
The Ministry of Justice is therefore proposing an alternative delivery arrangement whereby the functions of the CRC and NPS will be integrated into a single organisation with responsibility for all offenders. Additional services that support rehabilitation and resettlement will then be put out to tenders to enable a range of providers and voluntary sector organisations to compete to deliver them. This will likely extend beyond the kinds of support services described above to core parts of sentence delivery such as unpaid work schemes and accredited programmes.
DEVOLUTION
The proposals recognise that local landscapes are evolving and that probation services could be better aligned to regions with greater devolved responsibilities. They set out plans to test the benefits of co-designing arrangements in London and Greater Manchester where criminal justice devolution agreements are already in place.
TREXIT OR TRLITE?
There is much in these proposals to welcome and that responds to the concerns raised by Clinks’ research and that of the Public Accounts Committee, Justice Committee and HM Inspectorate of Probation. However, it is also clear that the Ministry of Justice is somewhat bound by the parameters of what it can do both politically - to avoid risking accusations of a full U-turn - and economically, given its current cash-strapped position. Reforms after the consultation period must address the fundamental limitations of the current system and not just fiddle with detail and presentation or they will risk not changing anything at all.
Clinks will be submitting a response to the consultation and encourage other voluntary sector organisations to do the same.
Today the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced an eight-week public consultation on the future of probation services. An open consultation on the future purpose and structure of probation was one of the key recommendations from Clinks' TrackTR research on the voluntary sector's involvement in Transforming Rehabilitation and we therefore warmly welcome this announcement.
While a public consultation on this subject is positive in and of itself, in this blog I will take a closer look at the MoJ's proposals and examine how different they truly are to the current system. Do they represent ‘TR-exit’ or is this more a case of ‘TR-lite’?
INVOLVEMENT OF THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR
Our research shows that the voluntary sector is under represented, under pressure and under resourced in the delivery of probation. It is reassuring to see the government recognise this in their consultation document. They also acknowledge our findings that charities in supply chains have had to adapt services or subsidise them with other charitable funds, undermining their quality and sustainability.
In order to improve the quality of services the Ministry of Justice is proposing that future probation contracts should be more clearly focused on “core offender management functions” and “delivering the standards that the courts require”. The proposals state that future arrangements will be much clearer about the services probation providers are required to deliver, where they may seek to commission, and where they should seek to influence the delivery of other local services. This is welcome and should help to address the confusion about what could and should be funded by probation, which our research found was leading to disinvestment in voluntary sector services from other sources.
They also state an intention to set out a clearer role for the voluntary sector and better facilitate its involvement in the design and delivery of probation services. This is particularly welcome. As the proposals rightly acknowledge, the type of support required to stop an individual offending varies from person to person. In many cases the underlying causes of offending are complex - homelessness, unemployment, mental ill health, substance misuse - and require additional specialist support - support which the voluntary sector has a proud history of providing alongside probation services, long before Transforming Rehabilitation was even a twinkle in Chris Grayling's eye.
There is, though, a potential contradiction and risk in the language used in the proposals. Describing offender management functions as the “core” of probation risks interpretation that this is also the core of rehabilitation and resettlement. In many cases, what is core to supporting a person's desistance is far more complex. The need for services that respond to that complexity must remain central in the development of these proposals, as well as consideration of how probation can secure access to them. It will be vital, as the new contracts are developed, to ensure that these additional but nonetheless essential services are properly enabled to support offender management.
The consultation itself does recognise this and asks how the MoJ can better engage voluntary sector providers in the design and delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services for people in the community. It is welcome that the MoJ is asking this question openly of the voluntary sector and recognises the value of co-designing commissioning and partnership working arrangements. They briefly set out some potential future models for this - such as separate frameworks or dynamic purchasing systems at national and regional levels - but the detail is lacking. Given the experience of many organisations under the current system, as well as recent experiences of the commissioning of families services and the current education contracts commissioning process, significant assurances will be needed by many in the voluntary sector that the lessons of the past will be learnt and applied.
The proposals also involve reducing the number of contract package areas from 21 to 10. It will be essential that consideration is given to the impact this might have on contract size, voluntary sector involvement and the provision of specialist and localised services.
There is also little attention given to those voluntary sector organisations who are in current supply chains and will inevitably be asking what all this means for them and what transition arrangements will be in place for their contracts. Clinks has been advised that organisations in this position should discuss this with the relevant Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). However, we would also be keen to know of the challenges and issues that you are encountering.
OTHER KEY PROPOSALS
In addition to setting out plans for working more closely with partners and involving the voluntary sector, the proposals include a range of significant changes to both how probation services are delivered and how they are contracted.
We will be publishing a full briefing on the proposals in the coming days but for now here’s a summary:
Contracts
Current CRC contracts will be terminated 18 months early. A competition for new contracts will be launched early next year and new CRC contracts will be in place by autumn 2020.
The number of contract package areas will be reduced from 21 to 10, making CRCs and the National Probation Service (NPS) co-terminus in order to drive better integration. They will be managed by a single Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service leader responsible for joining up services and working with stakeholders.
Future contracts will pay providers to deliver core services while retaining incentives for innovation and performance.
The key performance outcomes and indicators that providers should be judged against will be explored and HM Inspectorate Probation will be supported to implement its new framework.
Partnerships
Options will be explored for the commissioning of rehabilitation services to promote engagement and collaboration with local partners and facilitate greater voluntary sector involvement
Police and Crime Commissioners will be engaged to consider how they can play a greater role in shaping rehabilitation services and improving collaboration with local services.
Delivery
Minimum standards will be introduced which specify the form and frequency of contact between offenders and responsible officers
Post-sentence supervision will be reviewed to ensure it is proportionate to each offender’s sentence and rehabilitative needs
Circumstances for transfer of cases between CRCs and the NPS will be reviewed to take into account the dynamic nature of risk
The quality of advice to the court will be improved so that it better informs sentencing decisions
The range and quality of services delivered as part of rehabilitation activity requirements will be defined and embedded in future contracts and service levels
A protocol will be tested in five areas in England to increase the use of community sentences with drug, alcohol or mental health treatment requirements
Options for how the particular needs and vulnerabilities of different cohorts of offenders, including those with protected characteristics, will be explored
The data collected and published on offenders’ protected characteristics will be improved.
WALES
While criminal justice is not devolved to the Welsh government, prison and probation services are configured slightly differently in Wales and many related policy areas such as health, housing, social welfare and education are devolved. As the consultation highlights, this presents a fundamentally different delivery landscape in Wales and distinct partnership arrangements already exist to join up the delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services.
The Ministry of Justice is therefore proposing an alternative delivery arrangement whereby the functions of the CRC and NPS will be integrated into a single organisation with responsibility for all offenders. Additional services that support rehabilitation and resettlement will then be put out to tenders to enable a range of providers and voluntary sector organisations to compete to deliver them. This will likely extend beyond the kinds of support services described above to core parts of sentence delivery such as unpaid work schemes and accredited programmes.
DEVOLUTION
The proposals recognise that local landscapes are evolving and that probation services could be better aligned to regions with greater devolved responsibilities. They set out plans to test the benefits of co-designing arrangements in London and Greater Manchester where criminal justice devolution agreements are already in place.
TREXIT OR TRLITE?
There is much in these proposals to welcome and that responds to the concerns raised by Clinks’ research and that of the Public Accounts Committee, Justice Committee and HM Inspectorate of Probation. However, it is also clear that the Ministry of Justice is somewhat bound by the parameters of what it can do both politically - to avoid risking accusations of a full U-turn - and economically, given its current cash-strapped position. Reforms after the consultation period must address the fundamental limitations of the current system and not just fiddle with detail and presentation or they will risk not changing anything at all.
Clinks will be submitting a response to the consultation and encourage other voluntary sector organisations to do the same.
Here we are
ReplyDelete"Open consultation
Strengthening probation, building confidence
Published 27 July 2018
From:
Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service"
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-probation-building-confidence
When there's money to be had, integrity goes out the window.
ReplyDeleteI don't see more third sector involvement as changing very much at all.
Infact I think some of the responses and criticisms that will be published about the TR failure will be done with one eye on a future 'nice little earner'
Probation is part of the justice dystem. The justice system has no place in the free market.
The simple and most economical solution is renationalisation, and finding other ways to fund corporations that are only ever interested in profit margins.
'Getafix
Surely the CRC'S who will not be in a position to compete with the big boys for the new private areas will shbmit to damage limitation, take all the money offered and still pare down the service. Focused on final end game 2020.
ReplyDeleteHow on earth have we arrived at a place where people are talking about core probation functions and rehabilitation as almost separate entities. It is shocking to hear.
ReplyDeletePrivate and Voluntary sector have a role to play through local arrangements within a national guideline. Public Sector Prison Governors and Probation Chiefs need to be able contract and innovate locally with various partners including each other.
11.45am: UK government to terminate probation service contracts early
ReplyDeleteThe British government has said that it will end contracts with private companies such as Interserve PLC (LON:IRV) to run probation services in England and Wales, admitting that they had delivered the benefits expected.
UK Justice Secretary David Gauke said that the outsourcing contracts would end two years early in 2020, with no compensation payments to be made to contract holders.
The Ministry of Justice said it expects the total spend of the contracts to be up to £2.2bn over the life of the contracts, including a £170mln stabilisation package, although this was less than the £3.7bn originally envisaged if the contracts ran until 2022.
This result will vindicate opponents of the partial privatisation, which was introduced by then Justice Secretary Chris Grayling in 2015, as well as displaying a further shift in the UK government’s stance on outsourcing after the collapse of Carillion earlier this year brought the practice under intense public scrutiny.
In late-morning trading shares in prominent outsourcing firms Interserve and Capita were down 3.5% at 68.1p and up 1.2% at 163.2p respectively.
The FTSE 100 meanwhile was up 36 points at 7,699.
What is good for Wales is good for England as well - seems a good line - or some variation of that sentiment BUT - I have seen no comments specifically addressing THIS paragraph: -
ReplyDelete"DEVOLUTION
The proposals recognise that local landscapes are evolving and that probation services could be better aligned to regions with greater devolved responsibilities. They set out plans to test the benefits of co-designing arrangements in London and Greater Manchester where criminal justice devolution agreements are already in place."
the current companies if they dont bid are going to cut to the bone and maximise profit before leaving the husk. will this nightmare never end
DeleteMore from Napo:-
ReplyDeleteIt’s not often that we would send out two separate mailings to members in the space of a few hours but I am sure that you will appreciate the importance of the two issues that I am covering and the need for Napo to make our position absolutely clear.
As I write there will be many members who will have been involved in briefings with their senior managers about the implications of today’s announcement on probation by the justice secretary David Gauke.
You will have seen the robust response from Napo to the proposals in our earlier media release and some members may have been up early enough to see the work I did live on BBC News and Sky this morning. At what is again a massively uncertain climate for our members (especially for those working in the CRC estate), I wanted to make it absolutely clear that Napo’s criticism of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme and the latest proposed reforms do not in any way imply criticism of probation staff and managers who have worked incredibly hard to maintain service levels in an operational environment not of their choosing.
There are obviously a number of immediate challenges for Napo following the government’s decision to press ahead with their ‘Marketisation’ strategy for probation. The first will be to submit our evidence to the eight-week consultation exercise and the second is to take up the invitation I have received from the Labour Leadership to engage with their review into the future of probation. Beyond that we will be stepping up our campaign via the TUC, party conferences and parliament when it reconvenes.
While we remain implacably opposed to the government’s plans and the further bail out for existing CRCs over the next two years, we have a duty to continue our engagement with senior HMPPS leaders and ministers to urge a rethink and to ensure that our members interests are protected.
I will of course ensure that relevant communications are issued at every opportunity and we will be analysing the minister’s proposals and will be issuing an invite to members to feed into our response to the consultation.
Ian Lawrence
The facts about our pay claim and negotiations
ReplyDeleteIt’s hardly surprising that we have received a substantial number of individual enquiries from members this week who were understandably angry (as was I) after seeing the unexpected, hugely insensitive and factually incorrect statement by Rory Stewart on the intention to make a 2.7% pay award to prison staff.
A number of you have questioned why we have not been mentioned in this and other statements around public sector pay such as the NHS settlement and have asked what we are doing about it. The first important point here is that negotiations involving workers in other bargaining areas are informed by the outcomes from their own pay review bodies. The nearest that we have ever had to this type of arrangement was the National Negotiating Council which provided collective bargaining across all former probation trusts such as the 2008 pay award, but was disbanded by the government as an effective entity not long after the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation.
That did not stop Napo and our sister unions submitting pay claims, but the fact is that you have suffered a seven year pay freeze implemented by the Tory/ConDem coalition together with an austerity programme that is only just starting to provide limited leeway on pay awards. I should also you that what you may have seen awarded elsewhere does not even come close to what is needed before I even think about putting an offer to our members.
These facts have meant that Napo and our sister unions have had to plough its own furrow on pay; and the situation has been further complicated by the willingness of some CRC owners opening up pay discussions with the unions while senior HMPPS management have been prevented from doing the same because of the failure of the department to manage their financial affairs in recent times including having their accounts qualified. Last year our members suffered the indignity of having money destined for probation siphoned off into last year’s prison pay settlement after we were lied to.
Napo has regularly rehearsed the problems that include unacceptably long pay progression, members stuck at the top of their pay bands, the farcical Market Forces Supplements system and the inherent unfairness between a probation pay system that is manly populated by women against that of the male-centric prison service pay regime. We have reported this in numerous communications with members and during our engagement with ministers and senior HMPPS leaders but the plain fact is that unless or until the Treasury release a pay remit then negotiations simply cannot happen.
The complex problems caused by an underfunded pay system and the potentially discriminatory aspects of it have been acknowledged by the current HMPPS negotiators and they in turn have been doing all that they can to seek authority from the Treasury to commence negotiations which I am at last able to report will get underway in August.
Ready for action?
DeleteI have regularly informed other unions of our policy to ballot members as part of any co-ordinated industrial action campaigns on public sector pay but a number of those unions have opted to settle on behalf of their members as opposed to engaging in combined action.
Our hope is that a decent pay offer will be achievable in these negotiations and that in turn this will act as a lever for Napo to pressure CRC providers to at least match it. It’s unclear at the moment whether today’s announcement on the future of probation may have an impact here, but at the end of the day it will be our members who determine whether any pay offer is acceptable. If it’s not, we may have no other option but to ballot members on industrial action. But here the parameters have swung massively in favour of the employer in terms of legislative thresholds on member turnout and percentages in favour of action. In short, any ballot for industrial action would include a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ option where every unused vote would be counted in favour of the employer. If that scenario comes to pass then I will be out there among you campaigning for a massive ‘yes’ vote.
This amplifies the view that I have always maintained: it’s not about what Napo in the singular is doing about pay and the many other issues faced by our members, it’s about Napo, as in the collective.
Apologies again for burdening your inbox but these are key issues for our members which I felt bound to cover in more detail.
Ian Lawrence
That’s all well and good you keep saying your hands are tied on negotiating but what about some legal action around failure to pay our contractual increment in April that’s non negotiable it’s in my contract !
DeleteSo you don't want two increments, just one, ok
DeleteSeetec responds to Ministry of Justice plans to consult on changes to probation services
ReplyDeleteThe Ministry of Justice today announced an eight week consultation on proposals to the way the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are organised.
The Ministry proposes to end the current probation contracts in 2020 – two years ahead of schedule - and bring forward a new competition with new contracts in place and running by 2020.
Responding to today’s announcement John Baumback, Managing Director of Seetec, said:
“We welcome today’s announcement from government proposing changes to strengthen probation by establishing new commercial arrangements by 2020.
“As the parent company of Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company, we have first-hand experience of providing probation and rehabilitation services through the CRC, which HM Inspectorate of Probation assessed as “performing well”.
“We look forward to using our blend of rehabilitation, employability and skills expertise, combined with commercial relationships and IT experience, to respond to the government’s consultation and improve the overall delivery of rehabilitation services across the country.”
Seetec was founded in 1984 and has grown over the last 30 years to become one of the UK and Ireland’s most experienced providers of employability services, skills training, rehabilitation support and community work placements.
Seetec delivers personalised support to overcome barriers including long-term unemployment, low skills, family issues, substance misuse, health and housing.
I have no particular gripe with Seetec and other similar companies. Fundamentally though they are claiming to address social problems with people who often have multiples and complex issues and from that generate a profit to reinvest in their product and pay dividends to their shareholders. What they are equally saying is that they need more money to do this. I have never reconciled this equation. I am sure I could find a dedicated, experienced and qualified group of people who with the same ambition and fairly if modestly renumerated would not require extra to pay out executive bonus and dividends and achieve good results. Hang on a minute, that was what the former not fragmented and high performing public sector probation services were doing. Again struggling to reconcile this. Someone explain it to me in simple terms please.
DeleteThe Howard League for Penal Reform has responded to the Ministry of Justice’s vision for the future of probation services, published today (Friday 27 July).
ReplyDeleteFrances Crook, Chief Executive at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “Transforming Rehabilitation has failed. It was supposed to turn lives around and make communities safer, but instead it has done the opposite.
“The government has recognised that change is needed, and ministers are right to make a clear commitment to community sentences and a more proportionate use of supervision. But handing over more cash in the meantime to abject private companies – whose contracts are being cut short because they have failed to deliver what was promised – is throwing good money after bad.
“The mess created by the public/private split of probation was foreseeable and was foreseen. The proposed ‘TR2’ will not solve the inherent problems of part-privatising a service that should properly sit within the public sector.
“The Howard League has the answers. We have sought the expert views of academics, officials and practitioners, and drawn up proposals for a service that would protect the public and reduce crime. It is time to consign privatised probation to history and do what works.”
"The Howard League has the answers. We have sought the expert views of academics, officials and practitioners,"
ReplyDeleteAnyone who says that or claims expertise rather than just experience are deciving themselves and probably others as well.
I have had a stab at the consultation 18 questions - they seem to have forgotten basics like dealing with hidden disabilities but maybe you will disagree.
It needs finishing by 21st September and does not have to be finalised in one go.
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/hm-prisons-and-probation/strengthening-probation-building-confidence
I get the pay issue, its not fair and we have been shafted yet again and to be frank - it pisses me off. What I am failing to see amongst all of this is that someone needs to be held to account for this mess we are all in. For crying out loud, I have tried to innocently make a £40 claim for fuel to travel to parole hearing only to be quite rudely told (obviously by email) by the powers that be behind SOP that it was over a 100 miles and made to feel like I was submitting a dodgy claim and I should have taken a hire car. In reality, it was 110 miles and was last minute, but was a case of computer says no and a big cough in front of screen. In contrast, we have one incumbent fool who has cost the tax payer millions, if not billions through work and pensions, MOJ and now the transport sector and it seems to me that's ok - he is one of the lads. He needs to be held to account as in any other career, he would have been sacked before it came to this. The excess millions/billions that have been wasted in this farce! A small proportion of that could have been used to actually recognise the hard working and dedicated staff that still remain and keep us in line with everyone else. Instead, we have to wait for the stalling greasy pole climbers at MOJ to congratulate our prison colleagues and their managers whilst we sit back and deal with the day to day fire fighting due to lack of resources through prisons and in the community that double if not quadruple our time. Absolutely shocking and if that fool and this corrupt government gets away with this, it will not be an effective measure of where the country is at, as a whole. Lets not forget, this is not taking into account the absolute shambles with Brexit which best not get me started on.
ReplyDelete