It certainly took some time, but the inevitability of a humiliating admission that TR was an unmitigated disaster of gigantic proportions and that TR2 hasn't a hope in hell of being sold to anyone as a bright new future, has at last dawned on the MoJ and its political masters. Of course it won't be spun like that because taxpayers pay for a huge team of enthusiastic young spin doctors who as we speak are developing the positive narrative that will accompany news of probation reunification. And it's started with this in today's Times:-
State may take back control of probation service
David Gauke, the justice secretary, is preparing to renationalise probation after a partial privatisation by Chris Grayling that a watchdog branded “irredeemably flawed”. Under the proposals the supervision of tens of thousands of offenders will be taken over by the state-run probation service. Private sector companies will provide treatment programmes and other help to criminals.
In March Dame Glenys Stacey, chief inspector of probation, said the system was “irredeemably flawed” and that the public would be safer if core supervision work were managed by the state. A final decision has yet to be made on moving the supervision of medium and low-risk offenders back into state hands but it is the option favoured by Mr Gauke. “It couldn’t be any worse that what has been going on,” one probation service source said.
State may take back control of probation service
David Gauke, the justice secretary, is preparing to renationalise probation after a partial privatisation by Chris Grayling that a watchdog branded “irredeemably flawed”. Under the proposals the supervision of tens of thousands of offenders will be taken over by the state-run probation service. Private sector companies will provide treatment programmes and other help to criminals.
In March Dame Glenys Stacey, chief inspector of probation, said the system was “irredeemably flawed” and that the public would be safer if core supervision work were managed by the state. A final decision has yet to be made on moving the supervision of medium and low-risk offenders back into state hands but it is the option favoured by Mr Gauke. “It couldn’t be any worse that what has been going on,” one probation service source said.
--oo00oo--
Of course this has been on the cards for some time with the MoJ spin department having fallen silent some time ago. But we've been reading the runes; the ducks are forming up in rows and the celestial bodies are coming into alignment. The stage is set; it just needs to be packaged as an exciting, bright new future and the politicians have to save face, obviously. There has to be a role for the private sector because Tories believe in privatisation, even though it doesn't work. There has to be a role for the third sector because that gives the impression that the Tories aren't the nasty party and believe in the value of 'charity'. Of course there is the small matter of them having been royally shafted by TR, but that letter the other day ordering a 'bung' makes clear the political dimension to all this:-
PAC raises concerns over rehabilitation services and wider impacts of failing to support offenders on release from prison.
"I intend to put in place a more stable and resilient probation system, which works effectively to protect the public and tackle reoffending. In that context, there is clearly value in maintaining a diverse and varied market of providers able to address the complex needs of individuals in the probation system. Organisations such as these will be key in the future market for probation services; if our failure to stand behind them results in their departure from the market, this could make it difficult for our reformed service to properly do its job from inception."In order to save face it looks clear that the private sector will probably be rewarded with hugely-expanded tagging contracts, together with programmes and UPW along the Welsh model. The MoJ will champion the fact that they listened to the evidence from the 'sham' consultation; they heeded the stern words from Bob Neill and took on board the damning reports from the PAC and NAO. Just about everyone can claim success for this outcome; the unions, academics; campaigning groups; this blog even, but it's only a first step. It won't be like it was before and we simply must shake free of HMPPS command and control. But that's for another day folks. In the mean time, lets remind ouselves why TR2 had to be strangled at birth. This from last week:-
PAC raises concerns over rehabilitation services and wider impacts of failing to support offenders on release from prison.
Report summary
In its haste to rush through its reforms at breakneck speed the Ministry of Justice not only failed to deliver its ‘rehabilitation revolution’ but left probation services underfunded, fragile, and lacking the confidence of the courts.
The Ministry’s attempt to stabilise the contracts, and its decision to terminate them in December 2020 - 14 months early - will cost the taxpayer an additional £467 million.
There has been no noticeable improvement in the support offered to offenders since these reforms were first implemented, and they have failed to reduce reoffending by as much as expected, with the average number of reoffences committed by each reoffender actually increasing.
Through the Gate (TTG) services have failed to provide appropriate support for those released from prison. In some cases, offenders have been provided with tents and left with no fixed address on release from prison. This will ultimately cost the taxpayer more as costs are shunted elsewhere in the system.
Chair's comments
“Despite warnings from this Committee and the National Audit Office over the past three years, the Ministry of Justice has failed to bring about the promised revolution in rehabilitation. Rather than deliver the savings hoped for at the start of the programme, the Ministry’s attempts to address the failures in the reforms have cost the taxpayer an additional £467 million while failing to achieve the anticipated improvements in reoffending behaviour.
“Over-optimistic initial forecasts left the Ministry of Justice fighting fires of their own making since the programme’s inception.
“The Cabinet Office, HM Treasury and the Major Projects Review Group share responsibility for these failures by providing insufficient challenge at the early stages of the project and allowing it to proceed too quickly with insufficient safeguards or testing.
“The way offenders are treated on their release from prison has a significant impact on how they re-integrate into society – the failures of this programme have left offenders unsupported leading to further costs to taxpayers in dealing with both reoffending and supporting individuals failed by the rehabilitation system.
“The Ministry of Justice must demonstrate that it has learnt lessons and be more assertive in addressing the failures of design, delivery and financial planning.”
Conclusions and recommendations
The breakneck speed with which the Ministry introduced the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms created an unacceptable level of risk that was not sufficiently challenged by the safeguards intended to protect the taxpayer. Transforming Rehabilitation was an ambitious programme that contained inherent risks, including combining a ‘black box approach’, using payment by results to incentivise innovation, with extending statutory supervision to offenders sentenced to less than 12 months. The Ministry failed to conduct adequate pilots or to learn sufficiently from similar programmes elsewhere and tied the reforms to a timescale that was undeliverable from the outset. It suffered from optimism bias and gambled on the promises of innovation and it is unacceptable that so many unnecessary risks were taken with taxpayers’ money. The Ministry acknowledges that it implemented its reforms at breakneck speed in order to procure contracts before the 2015 general election. In its haste, it failed to get enough commercial input into its plans. Responding to the problems with these contracts will cost the taxpayer an additional £467 million. Despite the risks involved, the checks and balances for major projects designed to protect the taxpayer, including HM Treasury and the Major Projects Review Group, gave the programme the green light and failed to provide effective challenge.
Recommendation: The Ministry, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, should write to us by the end of June 2019 to set out what has been done to strengthen the approval and challenge processes both within the Ministry and at the centre of government in response to failed programmes such as this.
The Ministry has created an underfunded and fragile probation market and we are not confident in its ability to cope with further provider failure. In September 2016 we warned about CRCs’ increasing dependence on payment by results and the risks to the financial sustainability of CRCs. The Ministry failed to realise that a payment by results model was not appropriate for probation or that reoffending was not a good measure of performance for CRCs. Its system relied on volumes of work which did not materialise, meaning that CRCs were unable to cover the cost of basic probation services let alone invest in innovation. At the outset, the Ministry modelled a 2% reduction in volumes of work but, two years into the programme, volumes were between 16% and 48% lower than anticipated. In February 2019, Working Links and the three CRCs it owned went into administration, requiring the Ministry to transfer these services to Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC. The Ministry was confident that it or another provider would be able to step in if other suppliers fail, but it is constrained by a cap which means that no provider can own 25% of the market, and the NPS is already dealing with intolerable workloads. Interserve, the owner of five CRCs, went into administration on 15 March and it is unclear what impact this will have on the future of these contracts.
Recommendation: The Ministry should write to the Committee, by the end of June 2019, providing details of its contingency arrangements in the event of further provider failure, and explaining what it is doing to manage this risk as its contracts proceed to termination in December 2020. The Ministry should also provide the Committee with an outline of how it managed the impact of both Working Links and Interserve collapsing into administration.
The Ministry will not make sustained progress with reducing reoffending until it can provide the support offenders desperately need on leaving prison, including securing stable accommodation. The reforms failed to reduce reoffending by as much as expected and, from 2011 to March 2017, the average number of reoffences committed by each reoffender actually increased by 22%. The number of offenders recalled to prison increased by 47% from January 2015 to September 2018 and the Ministry acknowledges that it is a long way from getting post-sentence supervision right. The Ministry’s Through the Gate (TTG) model has not provided the services it promised and an estimated 2,961 prisoners did not receive TTG services in 2018. Prisons have been releasing prisoners without settled accommodation, with some prisoners having been provided with tents instead. The Ministry does not know how many prisoners have settled accommodation after they leave prison. The cross government Reducing Reoffending Board has met two or three times in its first year but there is little concrete evidence of what it has achieved so far.
Recommendation: The Ministry, working with the Reducing Reoffending Board should report back to this Committee, by the end of June 2019, setting out a cross-government strategy to reduce reoffending, and how it will measure whether this is working.
The Ministry failed to involve voluntary sector organisations in delivering probation services on the scale it promised. We warned in both September 2016 and March 2018 that the Ministry was not doing enough to involve the voluntary sector in efforts to improve rehabilitation services. As at October 2018, just 11% of voluntary sector organisations (VSOs) working in the sector provide services to CRCs, and probation trusts spent less than 3% of their budgets on voluntary and third sector provision. VSOs were frozen out of bidding because they were unable to provide the onerous Parent Company Guarantees required to tender for the contracts. The voluntary sector has also become less involved in providing TTG services, resulting in the loss of better-quality specialist services, that had been provided at no cost to the taxpayer. Currently provision of specialist services on mental health, employment and substance abuse is poor and not tailored to offenders’ needs. The Ministry acknowledges that VSO involvement is patchy and it intends to design its new system to have greater input from VSOs.
Recommendation: When it announces its new approach, the Ministry should write to the Committee to clearly explain what role it expects VSOs to play in the probation system, and what it will do to ensure this role is being fulfilled successfully. The Ministry should also outline how it intends to improve its provision of specialist services and how it will tailor these services to the specific requirements of those in need of support.
The Ministry’s decision to split the probation service has let down offenders and those working in the justice system. The split of probation services between the NPS and CRCs introduced many new points of contact between different parts of the probation system and with the wider justice system, which create friction and require effort and resource to manage. The reforms split the role of probation services in court, so the NPS provides all advice to courts in a pre-sentence report, while CRCs do not attend court. These arrangements undermine sentencers’ confidence in CRCs which, in turn, is partly responsible for the declining use of community sentences – even though community sentences generally lead to better outcomes for offenders. The Ministry failed to anticipate that changes in sentencing practice would increase caseloads for the NPS. As at September 2018 the caseload split between CRCs and the NPS was 59:41 against an original assumption of 64:36. Combined with severe staffing shortages, this has resulted in intolerable workloads for the NPS. Delays to the Ministry’s ICT gateway to provide a link between CRCs and HMPPS have cost the taxpayer £23 million in compensation to CRCs and only two CRCs are currently using the gateway.
Recommendation: If it persists with this flawed structure, the Ministry should urgently spell out how such a separation of probation service can work effectively and what it will do to address the failings with the current system.
If the Ministry does not put into practice the lessons from its failed reform programme it is in danger of repeating the same mistakes again. In July 2018, the Ministry announced that it will terminate its CRC contracts, 14 months early, in December 2020. It has consulted on the future of probation services and plans to procure second-generation contracts in April 2019. It does not yet have a blueprint for its new system. The Ministry has stated that the NAO’s report has provided it with a clear framework of things it must do differently in its new system, and that there was not a single lesson in the report it would not take on board. Despite this, the Ministry has not allowed any more time for its procurement of new contracts than it did last time, although it is working on contingencies that may give it some more time. The Ministry is unable to say whether it will conduct pilots of the new system, conceding that it ‘might’ for some areas.
Recommendation: When it announces its new plans, the Ministry should write to this Committee spelling out exactly how its plans to address the failings set out by this Committee and the NAO, and how it will avoid the same mistakes happening again.
In its haste to rush through its reforms at breakneck speed the Ministry of Justice not only failed to deliver its ‘rehabilitation revolution’ but left probation services underfunded, fragile, and lacking the confidence of the courts.
The Ministry’s attempt to stabilise the contracts, and its decision to terminate them in December 2020 - 14 months early - will cost the taxpayer an additional £467 million.
There has been no noticeable improvement in the support offered to offenders since these reforms were first implemented, and they have failed to reduce reoffending by as much as expected, with the average number of reoffences committed by each reoffender actually increasing.
Through the Gate (TTG) services have failed to provide appropriate support for those released from prison. In some cases, offenders have been provided with tents and left with no fixed address on release from prison. This will ultimately cost the taxpayer more as costs are shunted elsewhere in the system.
Chair's comments
“Despite warnings from this Committee and the National Audit Office over the past three years, the Ministry of Justice has failed to bring about the promised revolution in rehabilitation. Rather than deliver the savings hoped for at the start of the programme, the Ministry’s attempts to address the failures in the reforms have cost the taxpayer an additional £467 million while failing to achieve the anticipated improvements in reoffending behaviour.
“Over-optimistic initial forecasts left the Ministry of Justice fighting fires of their own making since the programme’s inception.
“The Cabinet Office, HM Treasury and the Major Projects Review Group share responsibility for these failures by providing insufficient challenge at the early stages of the project and allowing it to proceed too quickly with insufficient safeguards or testing.
“The way offenders are treated on their release from prison has a significant impact on how they re-integrate into society – the failures of this programme have left offenders unsupported leading to further costs to taxpayers in dealing with both reoffending and supporting individuals failed by the rehabilitation system.
“The Ministry of Justice must demonstrate that it has learnt lessons and be more assertive in addressing the failures of design, delivery and financial planning.”
Conclusions and recommendations
The breakneck speed with which the Ministry introduced the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms created an unacceptable level of risk that was not sufficiently challenged by the safeguards intended to protect the taxpayer. Transforming Rehabilitation was an ambitious programme that contained inherent risks, including combining a ‘black box approach’, using payment by results to incentivise innovation, with extending statutory supervision to offenders sentenced to less than 12 months. The Ministry failed to conduct adequate pilots or to learn sufficiently from similar programmes elsewhere and tied the reforms to a timescale that was undeliverable from the outset. It suffered from optimism bias and gambled on the promises of innovation and it is unacceptable that so many unnecessary risks were taken with taxpayers’ money. The Ministry acknowledges that it implemented its reforms at breakneck speed in order to procure contracts before the 2015 general election. In its haste, it failed to get enough commercial input into its plans. Responding to the problems with these contracts will cost the taxpayer an additional £467 million. Despite the risks involved, the checks and balances for major projects designed to protect the taxpayer, including HM Treasury and the Major Projects Review Group, gave the programme the green light and failed to provide effective challenge.
Recommendation: The Ministry, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, should write to us by the end of June 2019 to set out what has been done to strengthen the approval and challenge processes both within the Ministry and at the centre of government in response to failed programmes such as this.
The Ministry has created an underfunded and fragile probation market and we are not confident in its ability to cope with further provider failure. In September 2016 we warned about CRCs’ increasing dependence on payment by results and the risks to the financial sustainability of CRCs. The Ministry failed to realise that a payment by results model was not appropriate for probation or that reoffending was not a good measure of performance for CRCs. Its system relied on volumes of work which did not materialise, meaning that CRCs were unable to cover the cost of basic probation services let alone invest in innovation. At the outset, the Ministry modelled a 2% reduction in volumes of work but, two years into the programme, volumes were between 16% and 48% lower than anticipated. In February 2019, Working Links and the three CRCs it owned went into administration, requiring the Ministry to transfer these services to Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC. The Ministry was confident that it or another provider would be able to step in if other suppliers fail, but it is constrained by a cap which means that no provider can own 25% of the market, and the NPS is already dealing with intolerable workloads. Interserve, the owner of five CRCs, went into administration on 15 March and it is unclear what impact this will have on the future of these contracts.
Recommendation: The Ministry should write to the Committee, by the end of June 2019, providing details of its contingency arrangements in the event of further provider failure, and explaining what it is doing to manage this risk as its contracts proceed to termination in December 2020. The Ministry should also provide the Committee with an outline of how it managed the impact of both Working Links and Interserve collapsing into administration.
The Ministry will not make sustained progress with reducing reoffending until it can provide the support offenders desperately need on leaving prison, including securing stable accommodation. The reforms failed to reduce reoffending by as much as expected and, from 2011 to March 2017, the average number of reoffences committed by each reoffender actually increased by 22%. The number of offenders recalled to prison increased by 47% from January 2015 to September 2018 and the Ministry acknowledges that it is a long way from getting post-sentence supervision right. The Ministry’s Through the Gate (TTG) model has not provided the services it promised and an estimated 2,961 prisoners did not receive TTG services in 2018. Prisons have been releasing prisoners without settled accommodation, with some prisoners having been provided with tents instead. The Ministry does not know how many prisoners have settled accommodation after they leave prison. The cross government Reducing Reoffending Board has met two or three times in its first year but there is little concrete evidence of what it has achieved so far.
Recommendation: The Ministry, working with the Reducing Reoffending Board should report back to this Committee, by the end of June 2019, setting out a cross-government strategy to reduce reoffending, and how it will measure whether this is working.
The Ministry failed to involve voluntary sector organisations in delivering probation services on the scale it promised. We warned in both September 2016 and March 2018 that the Ministry was not doing enough to involve the voluntary sector in efforts to improve rehabilitation services. As at October 2018, just 11% of voluntary sector organisations (VSOs) working in the sector provide services to CRCs, and probation trusts spent less than 3% of their budgets on voluntary and third sector provision. VSOs were frozen out of bidding because they were unable to provide the onerous Parent Company Guarantees required to tender for the contracts. The voluntary sector has also become less involved in providing TTG services, resulting in the loss of better-quality specialist services, that had been provided at no cost to the taxpayer. Currently provision of specialist services on mental health, employment and substance abuse is poor and not tailored to offenders’ needs. The Ministry acknowledges that VSO involvement is patchy and it intends to design its new system to have greater input from VSOs.
Recommendation: When it announces its new approach, the Ministry should write to the Committee to clearly explain what role it expects VSOs to play in the probation system, and what it will do to ensure this role is being fulfilled successfully. The Ministry should also outline how it intends to improve its provision of specialist services and how it will tailor these services to the specific requirements of those in need of support.
The Ministry’s decision to split the probation service has let down offenders and those working in the justice system. The split of probation services between the NPS and CRCs introduced many new points of contact between different parts of the probation system and with the wider justice system, which create friction and require effort and resource to manage. The reforms split the role of probation services in court, so the NPS provides all advice to courts in a pre-sentence report, while CRCs do not attend court. These arrangements undermine sentencers’ confidence in CRCs which, in turn, is partly responsible for the declining use of community sentences – even though community sentences generally lead to better outcomes for offenders. The Ministry failed to anticipate that changes in sentencing practice would increase caseloads for the NPS. As at September 2018 the caseload split between CRCs and the NPS was 59:41 against an original assumption of 64:36. Combined with severe staffing shortages, this has resulted in intolerable workloads for the NPS. Delays to the Ministry’s ICT gateway to provide a link between CRCs and HMPPS have cost the taxpayer £23 million in compensation to CRCs and only two CRCs are currently using the gateway.
Recommendation: If it persists with this flawed structure, the Ministry should urgently spell out how such a separation of probation service can work effectively and what it will do to address the failings with the current system.
If the Ministry does not put into practice the lessons from its failed reform programme it is in danger of repeating the same mistakes again. In July 2018, the Ministry announced that it will terminate its CRC contracts, 14 months early, in December 2020. It has consulted on the future of probation services and plans to procure second-generation contracts in April 2019. It does not yet have a blueprint for its new system. The Ministry has stated that the NAO’s report has provided it with a clear framework of things it must do differently in its new system, and that there was not a single lesson in the report it would not take on board. Despite this, the Ministry has not allowed any more time for its procurement of new contracts than it did last time, although it is working on contingencies that may give it some more time. The Ministry is unable to say whether it will conduct pilots of the new system, conceding that it ‘might’ for some areas.
Recommendation: When it announces its new plans, the Ministry should write to this Committee spelling out exactly how its plans to address the failings set out by this Committee and the NAO, and how it will avoid the same mistakes happening again.
Can't wait for reunification? There's always this option. Closing date 9th June.
ReplyDeleteDo you remember why you became a Probation Officer? Do you want to get back to delivering truly person-centered care? How about living within a thriving community, set in a stunning natural environment? If so, come and join our friendly team of experienced health and social care professionals in the beautiful Falkland Islands.
The Role
As a sole Probation Officer, with support from the Social Services Team, you will work with offenders aged 18 and over who have been either sentenced by the courts to a Probation Order, Community Service or Suspended Sentence Order. You will prepare pre-sentence reports for judges and magistrates in the courts and work with offenders in the community to reduce reoffending. You will also work in the prison providing interventions and assessing offenders to prepare them for release.
In addition, it would be a requirement to have experience of delivering sex offender programs, intervention and behaviour modification work. You will liaise closely with the prison staff and Head of Prison service and provide updates on progress made and suggestions for further intervention.
TR saw the pantry shelves being filled with 40,000 under 12mth offenders to satisfy the appetite of the privateers.
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder if the MoJ will still want those 40,000 subject to probation supervision if or when reunification happens?
What will they do with them?
'Getafix
It is a mistake to have Group Programme work in private hands. Such work requires high levels of professional skill and competence as well as programme integrity. Private sector general drive to extract a profit and bid low to win contracts seems to produce a race to the bottom. I am not confident that they can run Unpaid Work successfully either given the evidence thus far. I still think a fragmented Probation Service in this way will be a pale imitation of its once former self but it does make sense to bring Offender Manager functions together regardless of the fact that the Private Sector has made a mess of such work. These reforms, if they are as said, are not a sensible compromise to my mind but a fudge. The idea of a perky innovative privatised 3rd sector partnered market in Probation Services is an illusion that most have now seen through.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/05/10/chris-graylings-privatisation-of-the-probation-service-was-so-flawed-the-government-is-planning-to-renationalise-it/
DeleteThe government is reportedly planning to renationalise the probation service. Prison reform campaigners have welcomed the news. But it only comes after the Conservatives’ own disastrous reforms to the sector.
DeleteOn May 10, the Times reported that justice secretary David Gauke was “preparing to renationalise probation”.
Former justice secretary Chris Grayling handed over a large part of the probation service to private companies in 2014. Grayling broke up 35 state-run probation trusts and gave 21 privately-run companies responsibility for low- and medium-risk offenders. High-risk offenders remained under supervision of the state.
Grayling claimed the £800m privatisation process would help tackle high reoffending rates. But his plans were criticised from the outset. The Observer reported in 2013 on an internal assessment made for the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). It wrote:
On a scale of one to 25, where 25 is the highest likelihood of something happening, the assessment gives a maximum score to the probability that there will be a “reduction [in] performance” under the new system. It states that this will see the “potential for service delivery failure increase” and that there is a very high chance of “operational confusion”. As a result, offenders will pose a “higher risk to the public” and there will be “poorer outcomes” for victims and communities.
Furthermore, reoffending rates have increased. Between July 2013 and June 2014, just prior to Grayling’s scheme, the MoJ said 24.9% of adults reoffended. But data for April to June 2017, the most recent available, showed 29.2% of adults reoffended.
This appeared to have been borne out by a recent review by the public accounts committee (PAC). On 3 May, it said that the government:
created an underfunded and fragile probation market and we are not confident in its ability to cope with further provider failure. … The Ministry [of Justice] failed to realise that a payment by results model was not appropriate for probation or that reoffending was not a good measure of performance for CRCs.
The PAC also noted that part of the problem came from the MoJ’s “optimism bias”. As a result, it said that “unnecessary risks” were taken with public money.
The PAC asked the Ministry of Justice to offer a plan for the sector by June. Although a final decision hadn’t yet been made, the Times said renationalisation of the privately-run rehabilitation companies is Gauke’s preferred method of achieving this.
Frances Crook, CEO of prison reform charity the Howard League, welcomed the news. She said the charity “recommends [a] national strategy with local delivery linked to other services”. Meanwhile, shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said the Tories must ‘commit fully’ to bringing probation back into state ownership. Former chair of the Parole Board for England and Wales, Nick Hardwick, said renationalisation “would be welcome” too. But he also pointed out that any plans must be careful about separating “support” of offenders from “supervision” of offenders.
Professor of criminology, James Treadwell, voiced concern that “we will face another rush to act” in solving the probation service’s problems. There’s no doubt then that Gauke must listen before he acts on this issue.
The problem being is that the NPS is not an ideal place to work either.
ReplyDeleteIt appears we may be asked if we want a pint of piss or just a half...
Yes there are so many problems now on both sides. NPS and CRC. Not going to be smiles and sunshine if they are joined together.
ReplyDeleteOh for goodness sake stop bloody moaning. OM is coming back under one roof and it's not a private one. Thank fuck at last I say. No it's not perfect but it's a definite move in the right direction so let's just have one weekend of relief before we pick holes in whatever comes next.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with this. It's a step in the right direction. We all agree TR should not have happened but it doesn't do any good moaning and bitching about it. Let's move forward. Still plenty of us left on both 'sides' who remain positive and want to do a good job. I'm really happy about it all.
DeleteWeek ahead in Parliament.
DeleteTuesday.
"The main debates are on two Labour motions - the first on prisons and probation looks especially well-timed, with increasing talk that the government is to "reset" its "Transforming Rehabilitation" programme to reform the probation service.
The debate could also see the debut of a new Prisons Minister, Robert Buckland, who steps into the role vacated by the newly promoted Rory Stewart.
Will he be challenged to match his predecessor's promise to resign, if the figures for violence in prisons do not improve?"
Not many years ago people said to me "for goodness sake stop complaining, the crc will let you spread your wings & deliver innovative forms of supervision - you'll have your own ipad & access to a cloud".
DeleteIt didn't go well, did it?
Poorly executed unification could be even more damaging for the well-being & professionalism of Probation staff.
Do not confuse being positive with being deceived, deluded or dumped on from a great height.
22:24 I completely agree with you after entering we've been out through and continue to be put through in CRCs I have no faith that what's next is going to be effectively completed whether it's reunification or not and that it will have staff and service users best interests at the forefront of their plans - we will be stuck with the same shit management that have banged the privateer drum's and introduced ridiculous unworkable models and stood by whilst staff are on their knees due to high case loads and staffing shortages - no doubt they will already be feathering their nests ready for any changes.
DeleteI'll be interested as to whether staff will be transferred from CRC to NPS or whether they'll be left behind and the NPS will simply recruit additional staff to deal with the extra OM work.
ReplyDeleteLeft behind no doubt more redundant.
DeleteIt may be a o- incidence, but there has been an announcement today that the selection criteria for TSP has been changed to broaden the range of potential candidates.
ReplyDeletePresumably if programmes are being privatised they will want to seek payment on the basis of bums on seats and no doubt using the unlamented ‘rate card.’
When probation services are prepared to let someone be sent to prison to cover their own failings, then re—unification is only a very small part of what needs to be fixed.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/judge-slams-probation-service-dropping-2856232
A Gloucester judge was "less than impressed" today that breach proceedings have been brought against a man who has not heard from the probation service for 14 months.
DeleteAdrian Kruszynski, 20, of no fixed address, appeared before Gloucester Crown Court on Friday, May 10, to answer to why he has breached a community order imposed on him in 2017 for an offence of harassing a Gloucester woman. He had received a six month jail term suspended for two years with various orders requiring him to undertake work with the probation service.
The court heard that he had made several attempts to contact the probation service to arrange a follow up appointment after six months and despite being told someone would be in touch he heard nothing for the next 14 months.
He was then surprised to hear that the probation services were bringing breach proceedings upon him for failure to attend appointments or comply with the order, the court was told.
Defending Kruszynski, Matthew Harbinson said his client had attended appointments and complied for the first six months.
"He then tried to make a follow up appointment and was repeatedly told someone would be in touch. However probation did not contact him until 14 months later to tell him he had breached. He says he did everything he could."
Judge Jason Taylor QC called it a "massive exercise in deflection. Rather than saying 'we dropped the ball,' they are saying he has breached," Judge Taylor said.
Addressing the probation officer in court today, Joanne Hal, the judge said: "This doesn't reflect well on probation."
Ms Hall said that despite what her professional opinion might be about the situation, she could not stop the breach action because it had been imposed by the Community Rehabilitation Centre and therefore if the defendant did not accept breaching there would need to be a contested court hearing.
"So we have to proceed to trial?" Judge Taylor asked Miss Hall. "Yes" she replied. "What a waste of money," he said.
Judge Taylor QC said he wasn't prepared to set a trial date at this stage and wanted a message sent to the Community Rehabilitation Centre to review their decision on whether they plan to pursue breach proceedings. "I am less than impressed by what I have heard. We will meet in two weeks time to see if the breach is being pursued," he said.
That will be working links and aka seetec. Useless .
DeleteInteresting times ahead. So will all the crc's be given compo for the contracts being ended sooner than they should have.
DeleteMore cash obscene crcs and their turncoat partisans a betrayal watch them Scrabble to get back into public services and get new makeovers claiming they were forced collaborators.
Delete