Thursday, 30 August 2018

What Future for Probation? 2

Yesterday's rousing plea from Frances Crook has nicely kicked off a bit of a debate, but with the sham probation consultation cleverly running during a period when many colleagues, especially those with children, are focused on holidays, returns to school, university etc, I suspect numerous pleas for ideas and views are going unheeded. Here's one from the Probation Institute:- 

Dear readers

The Probation Institute Fellows and Directors met on 14th August to consider the consultation "Strengthening Probation, Building Confidence".

Our response will be developed in full in the coming weeks, it will address the majority of the questions, focussing on some particularly key issues which, in headline terms will include 


  • An 8 week timescale set away in mid summer is too short for this consultation
  • The review must clearly state the purpose and the goals of changes needed before determining more new structures
  • Re-integration of offender management should be applied across England and Wales
  • We believe the proposal for a Professional Register should be more ambitious, wider in scope and driven by professional development for all practitioners as well as the conduct issues
  • The challenge of re-thinking post release supervision for under 12 month sentences should be a consultation in its own right and is critically important
  • A better balance between speed and time for a thorough assessment is needed in pre sentence reports
We are developing our thinking about performance/payment measures and about "intelligent commissioning". Our response will also include our views on professional training and the need for clear definition of roles. We are concerned that the consultation could destabilise probation training.

We would like to receive views of members on the consultation as early as possible to help us to develop our response. Please send us your views.

Helen Schofield
Acting Chief Executive


--oo00oo--

Thanks to the reader for forwarding this from their Napo branch regarding rather short notice of the event yesterday at HMP Askham Grange when Sonia Crozier and Ian Poree were due to put in an appearance. Can anyone who attended please tell us what transpired?  

Have your say - Strengthening Probation Building Confidence

Probation – What now?

Members will be acutely aware of the impact Transforming Rehabilitation had on both the service we provide and staff well-being. As we move towards what effectively amounts to TR Mark 2 it is imperative that members have their say on how to repair that damage and strengthen probation services.

Napo believes that Probation has no place in the private sector and should be brought back under public ownership. You will have your own views on what is required. Don’t miss this very important opportunity to have your say. You can register for this event or any others on the list here https://intranet.noms.gsi.gov.uk/news-and-updates/notices/probation-changes-invitation-to-staff-engagement-events

For members in the CRC please pass your comments and suggestions to your LDU colleagues who may be attending the event.

You can also attend in your own time.

--oo00oo--

On the subject of Police and Crime Commissioners, I'll end with this reminder from the archive dated 5th February 2016:-

Political Corruption

According to the latest edition of Private Eye, SEETEC is the latest of the probation privateers to be in special measures for failing an audit, but Home Secretary Theresa May has a cunning plan for probation - give it to PCC's to sort out.

Now those with long memories will recall that Police and Crime Commissioners was a concept floated a long time ago by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange to replace Police Authorities. It was an idea that had no public support and their election three years ago recorded the lowest ever turnout with hundreds of thousands of spoilt ballot papers, a fact that the government and Theresa May has conveniently swept under the carpet. This comment from yesterday summed it up nicely I thought:-

Democracy all round, then, as probation services and the modern version of borstal schools are handed on a plate to politically sponsored individuals who, at best, were shoe-horned into something like £65,000 a year PCC roles on the back of 30% of the votes from an average 15% turnout by the electorate. I'm not a statistician, but doesn't that effectively mean these quango's are being run by one person on the basis of getting the nod from just 5% of the electorate?

Like much of government policy nowadays, it was cooked up on the back of several fag packets and during her speech yesterday, even she admitted that at one point she felt it had all been a ghastly mistake. But only three PCCs have so far significantly disgraced themselves, none of them Tories, so relief all round and in fact completely unbeknown to the public, the decision has been made to give these barely-elected officials even more power over the Fire Service.

In a very sneaky move last month, departmental responsibility for the Fire Service moved quietly from the Department for Communities and Local Government, back to the Home Office in readiness for what will effectively become a merger of police and fire service functions under the joint control of PCCs. But clearly Theresa May feels suitably emboldened in her empire-building to now actively consider adding youth justice, probation and education to her portfolio:-

"But in the future, I would like to see the PCC role expanded even further still. Together with the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, I have been exploring what role PCCs could play in the wider criminal justice system. This is something that I have long believed in and which a number of PCCs have shown interest in. As they say, there is a reason that we included the words “and crime” in PCC’s titles.

So after the May elections, the Government will set out further proposals for police and crime commissioners. Because as a number of PCCs have argued, youth justice, probation and court services can have a significant impact on crime in their areas and there are real efficiencies to be had from better integration and information sharing. We have yet to decide the full extent of these proposals and the form they will take, but I am clear that there is significant opportunity here for PCCs to lead the same type of reform they have delivered in emergency services in the wider criminal justice system. 

And there are other opportunities too. As Adam Simmonds has argued, I believe the next set of PCCs should bring together the two great reforms of the last Parliament – police reform and school reform – to work with and possibly set up alternative provision free schools to support troubled children and prevent them from falling into a life of crime.
And alongside the expansion of PCC responsibilities, the development of powerful directly elected mayors provides a fantastic opportunity, where there is local agreement and boundaries make sense, to bring together policing with local transport, infrastructure, housing and social care services under a single directly elected mayor. I know many PCCs have engaged with local proposals, and I would encourage them to continue to do so - because I am clear that PCCs’ consent is a prerequisite for the inclusion of policing in any mayoral deal."

Now there's another funny thing - mention of 'Elected Mayor's'. I seem to remember the public were not too keen on them either. When John Prescott floated the idea years ago up in Durham and the North East, it was roundly rejected in a referendum and similarly where I live, electors comprehensively gave it the thumbs down. So how is it we're getting one imposed on us by George Osborne and Central Government anyway?

So lets get this right. The public didn't want PCCs, didn't turn out to vote for them and many that did, spoilt their ballot papers. The public don't know who they are, what they do or who is standing for election because candidates do not qualify for a free mailout. During the election for PCCs there will be no mention of the proposed new powers, that will only be decided after they are get elected.

What was the title of Theresa May's speech? Why, 'Putting People in Charge' of course! Oh how the English language has been utterly corrupted by politicians.

20 comments:

  1. “We believe the proposal for a Professional Register should be more ambitious,”

    .... because qualified probation officers as a benchmark wouldn’t bring in enough revenue for the PI who wants to run the register. I don’t see anyone arguing for non-social workers to be added to the social work register !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. its a cash grab for survival. hardly anyone is signed up to the pi. there influence on anything is near enough zero.

      Delete
    2. It’d be nice if the professional register for lawyers, crown prosecutors, architects, GP’s and police detectives plan to be “more ambitious, wider in scope”, I do fancy becoming one of those if I can get the job without any qualifications!!

      Delete
  2. “there is significant opportunity here for PCCs to lead the same type of reform they have delivered in emergency services in the wider criminal justice system.“

    Theresa May’s lies are as bad as her dancing. PPC’s will take Probation to a new low. There will be no reunification under PCC’s and after IOM, Mappa and Sex Offender management have been absorbed into the police, what’s left will be sold off to private companies !!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Probation as a concept, a profession and a career is drowning while the very few that are even aware of the ongoing tragedy are gathered round, either describing the water (napo/pi) or holding it under (hmpps/moj/privateers)...

    ... with the notable exception of Frances Crook & The Howard League, but they're limited to trying to build a lifebelt out of the shifting sand beneath their feet.

    Its a shameful, regrettable state of affairs. An analogy for Brexit Britain, where anything & everything with intrinsic humanitarian value has been trashed or sold off.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's not mentioned much, but I think it enevitable that the third sector will have a lot more say on how future probation is shapeds
    The lack of their evolvement in TR has been a major criticism.
    I think it good that probation services should have strong links with local third sector agencies.
    But I think that's a very different thing then making them a 'formal' part of the programme.
    I see very little difference in today's world between the private and third sectors, and there's money about.
    I think people should keep a quite eye on the third sector, its going to have a pretty big influence on the future of probation.

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not under a conservative government.

      Delete
    2. just like TR1. Bid candy and then sideline Again. History repeating itself

      Delete
  5. Off topic but worth noting.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-prison-jail-crisis-officers-quit-violence-harassment-a8507951.html


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-officer-jails-spice-sexual-harassment-tess-wale-long-lartin-a8513036.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A third of prison officers who leave the service quit within a year of starting, new figures show, prompting concerns that the crisis in UK jails is being exacerbated by dwindling retention rates.

      Chaos in the wings, lack of respect from management, and absence of support are among the reasons cited for the surge in officers resigning within months of starting.

      An analysis of figures by Labour shows 33 per cent of outgoing officers in the past 12 months – a total of 694 – had been in the service for less than a year, a figure which stood at just 7 per cent in 2010. This equates to 12 per cent of new hires.

      Less than one in three of those who left in the 12 months to June 2018 had been there for longer than 15 years, compared with nearly half (49 per cent) eight years ago.

      The findings will raise concerns that the government’s recruitment drive, which has seen an additional 2,500 officers start in 2018, could be flawed.

      It comes after The Independent revealed the number of prison officers resigning from their jobs more than doubled in two years, with figures showing one in 16 officers resigned last year, compared with one in 33 officers two years before and just one in 100 in 2009-10.

      In April, the government celebrated the fact that it had passed its target to recruit an additional 2,500 prison officers by the end of 2018, saying there had been a net increase of 3,111 prison officers between October 2016 and March 2018.

      Justice Secretary David Gauke said at the time: “Going beyond this important milestone so early is a real achievement", claiming it would make a "real difference" to the safety and security in prisons.

      But critics argue that the new officers are not being adequately trained and are being forced into challenging and sometimes dangerous situations before they are prepared or equipped to do so, leading to large numbers deciding to quit within months.

      The prisons watchdog warned in July that prisoners in England and Wales were enduring the “most disturbing conditions ever seen” as authorities fail to take action to curb record high levels of violence and self-harm in jails.

      Earlier this month, the government was forced to “step in” and take full control of the privately run HMP Birmingham, a jail that has been dogged by soaring violence, drug use and appalling living conditions.

      Shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon MP told The Independent the short retention rates demonstrated the government’s “contempt” for frontline prison officers.

      “These hardworking public servants put themselves in danger day in, day out, and yet the justice secretary can’t even be bothered to explain why he won’t give them the pay rise they deserve,” he said.

      “If ministers want to show they are serious about halting this exodus of frontline staff, they could begin by accepting the recommendations of the independent pay review body.”

      Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said it was not surprising that more prison officers were resigning when so many had to work in “dangerous conditions”, where the reality was “light years away from the vision of a caring, rehabilitative service that the job advert described”.

      “The catastrophic cuts that were made in the years after 2012 have destroyed confidence built up over decades. Rebuilding a safe environment will take more time and more resource than the ministry currently has to spend,” he added.

      “So as well as securing more money in the short term to recruit and retain in the prisons where officers leave fastest, ministers must also deliver on their promise to reduce the turnover of short term prisoners.

      “A policy of one person in one cell is the quickest and most effective route to a safe prison, where officers get to do the job they joined for.”

      Delete
    2. Responding to the figures, a Prison Service spokesperson said: “We are well ahead of our recruitment target, with 90 per cent of our new 3,111 prison officers due to be on landings this summer.

      “The leaving rate remains broadly in the normal range for workforces of this type and fell over the 12 months to June 2018. Retention is of course vital, which is why we have increased pay 2.75 per cent this year, on top of a 1.7 per cent average increase last year.

      “It is also why we are rolling out body worn cameras, ‘police-style’ handcuffs and restraints, and trialling PAVA incapacitant spray to ensure prison officers have the tools they need to do the job safely.”

      Delete
    3. Ho-hum. Keep losing officers in jails at this rate and we'll be back in 1980 when the Army staffed Frankland.

      Delete
    4. The Army staffed Frankland when it first opened not as a consequence of staff shortages, but as a consequence of national, and protracted, industrial action by prison officers.

      Delete
    5. True enough - a reminder of when Unions had some clout, but the industrial action left the prison short of staff and the government of the day had to turn to the Army. Similar to when G4S bodged the security contract for the 2012 Olympics.

      Delete
  6. Just seen this in the Independent.


    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/uk-prison-conditions-inmates-release-probation-service-privatisation-domestic-violence-a8514426.html

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it remains the case that upto 2 women per week lose their lives at the hands of their partners or ex partners and we take the number of annual murders varying between 500 and 800 combined with the knowledge that most domestic violence and abuse perpetrators are categorised as medium risk and, therefore, the responsibility of profit making enterprises then ... anyone see a problem here ... was it always madness to split profit and focussed public protection on the basis of risk of serious harm ... risk that fluctuates often wildly??? Come on HM Government! Getagripx

      Delete
    2. If you're worried about prison conditions, you should be deeply disturbed by what happens after inmates are released

      It’s not just HMP Birmingham – although the staggering tales of Spice-intoxicated inmates roaming the hallways and guards locking themselves into their offices certainly mark it as an outlier. The whole of Britain’s prison system is in a state of crisis. Staff working in dangerous conditions report chaos on prison wings, and feeling unsupported and fearful on a day-to-day basis. The situation is so bad that a third of those who join the prison service now leave within a year.

      Figures compiled by the Labour Party, and leaked this week, found that 33 per cent of prison officers leaving their jobs in the past 12 months had been in the role for less than a year, up from 7 per cent in 2010.

      The government had been publicly celebrating its success in recruiting a new generation of officers, but they should hold the champagne corks. The applause sounds rather hollow now.

      Meanwhile the prison population just keeps on rising, as the number and length of custodial sentences awarded creeps upwards too. Almost a third of indictable offences carried a custodial term in 2017, and the average term spent in jail is 16 months.

      Prisons are at breaking point, and the pressure they are under – due to both a lack of funding and now clearly of experience too – has led to big mistakes. A report published this week found that hundreds of sex offenders had been released from HMP Dartmoor despite posing a public risk, a result of “unplanned” release. That such an event can occur, and multiple times, demonstrates the extent to which control over the business of rehabilitation has been lost. Damningly, many of these men – who, despite their troubling crimes, should be recognised as vulnerable as well as potentially dangerous – were allowed to leave prison despite their release leaving them homeless.

      Yet, this is not the full story. If you think things are bad inside prison, take a look at what’s going on outside. It’s not just prison officers buckling under the pressure, the probation service is also nearing the point of collapse.

      Private companies drafted in to manage offenders in the community, and paid by results to do this, have failed utterly in their task.

      Some three years ago, the probation service was split in two. The government-run National Probation Service continued to manage the most high-risk offenders, those who have committed very serious crimes or who are judged to pose a serious and ongoing risk to the wellbeing of others. And despite being streamlined, and losing a lot of its staff through redundancy, it has been assessed as continuing to do a good job. That in itself should not prompt significant celebration; it is, surely, the least we can expect from a functioning government, that it is able to protect its population from danger and exploitation.

      The privatised part of the system, however, is made up of community rehabilitation companies – private organisations who bid for the work and are paid according to their achievements – who look after those offenders who are considered to pose a “low” or a “medium” risk. Their key task is to support their rehabilitation and prevent reoffending; to move former criminals on to new, positive, productive lives.

      There are 21 of these companies in operation. So far, only two have managed to cut the reoffending rate. The latest assessment of their work has been damning: Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, said staff at the CRCs – who are inexperienced, as a huge number of long-standing probation officers took redundancy or retirement when the service split in two – are doing a bad job of managing their caseloads. Too often, communication with their clients was taking place by telephone, with little effort to build the supportive relationships that could turn lives around.

      Delete
    3. Payment by results means these failing CRCs could make yet more staff cuts, with worse outcomes for their charges – and for the communities in which they live. Payment by results is all very well in manufacturing, for example, but when those measurable results are the health and wellbeing of our society, it isn’t just logistically challenging but also extremely high risk.

      What makes the situation even more troubling is the way that some crimes are categorised. At the point of privatisation, women’s charities warned that those convicted of domestic violence may fall under the category of “low” or “medium” risk – even though it is well known that domestic violence can escalate very suddenly. That put them under the care of less experienced officers, who operate a lighter touch approach. There is little recognition in the system for the fact that the risk posed by someone under the probation service can wax and wane. How can an officer possibly know that this risk level is shifting if they have so little face-to-face contact with them? Two woman, remember, are killed by their partner or former partner every week in England and Wales.

      The rapid decline in the quality of the probation service has created a dangerous cycle of neglect, where criminals who are not properly supported both pose a higher risk to the community and are also more likely to seriously reoffend – which leads to a further conviction, which then (thanks to rising incarceration rates) leads to a sentence, and yet more pressure on the buckling prison system.

      The government admits, in its own statistics, that more than a third of offenders now have what it describes as “long criminal careers”. That situation is untenable.

      In managing the post-prison lives of violent and dangerous criminals, the government, ironically, has proved it can do something well for itself. Too bad it is still so seduced by the whiff of profit that it’s willing to cast aside our most vulnerable in pursuit of ideology over success.

      Delete
    4. Case manager's ( PSO's in old money ) within Interserve CGM are being forced to run domestic violence none accredited programs with little /basic training in core skills and program content - those of us who are " experienced " CM's / PSO's are battling this as we are concerned / scared about the potential harm that could be caused to victims of domestic violence/abuse if the programs are not run effectively - unfortunately our concerns are falling on deaf ears as that would be an acknowledgement that they should never have dismantled the experienced programs teams that we had and made everyone become Jack of all trades and absolutely masters of bugger all - lots of programs staff left after being forced into case management.

      Delete
  7. "Private companies drafted in to manage offenders in the community, and paid by results to do this, have failed utterly in their task... The rapid decline in the quality of the probation service has created a dangerous cycle of neglect"

    Thank fuck that someone beyond the rarified atmosphere of this blog has said it, in writing, in mainstream media.

    It still won't stop MoJ, HMPPS & co patting themselves on the back, ignoring the out-of-control disaster they created whilst rewarding themselves with cash bonuses & staff with discount shopping vouchers.

    ReplyDelete