Napo's demands for the future of Probation
When even the potential bidders for new contracts are concerned (as featured in a report by Danny Shaw to the Today Programme on 29th July) about the viability it is ever more important to be clear about what would make a difference in the Probation System. Here are Napo’s four key demands for the future of Probation.
In re-designing Probation it is vital that lessons are learned from the profound failure of “Transforming Rehabilitation” (TR). Simply re-drawing the line between the public and private provision is not enough to repair all of the damage done.
Fully integrated service provision
In all of the varied criticisms of TR the split in service provision was universally acknowledged as a cause for poor service provision, increased bureaucracy, duplication of work and communication issues. We demand a fully integrated and unified service, with all core functions, including unpaid work and interventions, delivered from a single organisation in an integrated way. This doesn’t preclude the involvement of specialist provision by the third sector in a partnership arrangement but ensures that the management and delivery of core services is done in a joined up way.
In the public sector and never for profit but out of the civil service and released from prison
No one should profit from crime and so no one should profit from the delivery of Justice as a result of those crimes. The delivery of Probation Services belongs in the public sector however the move to the Civil Service as a result of TR has meant that the National Probation Service is now overly bureaucratic and follows a top down “command and control” culture. This means that the responsivity to local priorities that was once a key feature of Probation has been lost and innovation is reserved to those promoted to senior positions rather than open to all. Probation Officers are, as part of their training, encouraged to think critically about the work that they are doing and the systems in which they are doing it. This is almost impossible from within the Civil Service where criticism of the establishment is forbidden.
For many years Probation has struggled for recognition and focus against the forced partnership with the Prison Service. Although we recognise the advantages of working closely with our colleagues in the Prison Service we are not an adjunct to that service and while there are many areas where our work and ways of working, align there are also many areas where they do not. While the senior roles in HMPPS are predominantly held by those with a background in the Prison Service and while the second ‘P’ in HMPPS is generally silent it is difficult for the Probation Service to focus on developing its own culture and values.
Our demand is for Probation Services to exist outside of the Civil Service but in the public sector, as a non-departmental government body in the same way as organisations like CAFCASS and many others. This would allow for a degree of consistency through a national structure but would enable the development of culture and values that support Probation Practice.
Built on evidence based practice
There is a wealth of evidence about how to support people to desist from offending. Research into desistance and risk assessment and management is abundant. Little of this knowledge is being employed in redesigning Probation Services. Much of the pressure that staff leaving the service describe is about being asked to work in ways which they feel are not good practice at best or dangerous at worst. There is no sign of these lessons being learned. In addition there have been attempts to silence those who raise concerns about practice and the evidence of a need for change has been suppressed for example in the case of the report detailing concerns about SOTP in prisons.
At the same time as the feted reintegration of offender management work following TR the other big project is the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) project. OMiC builds in multiple changes of Offender Manager despite the fact that such changes were criticised so much in the TR model that it caused a significant change of policy and move to the reintegration.
All Probation Practice should be based on evidence and changes should be made to ways of working when indicated by research and evidence. Best practice should be modelled on this research and evidence, not the convenience of the organisation or the needs of a contract.
Rooted in the local community and partnering with local specialist providers
Probation is about people and people exist in communities. The link to the community is vital and must be prioritised. What works in one village, town or city might not work elsewhere. There must be a facility to respond to local needs and priorities and to shape service delivery to suit. Frontline practitioners must be empowered to work in a way that meets the needs of both their client and their community rather than to an agenda set centrally.
There are many third sector providers working in response to local needs that might be excellent partners for Probation Services, either as a contractor or in other arrangements. Sadly many of these very local services were simply frozen out of the system due to TR but where they exist they should be involved in the delivery of services in an appropriate way. Large contracts are not the way to deliver such innovative and responsive partnerships as smaller third sector organisations cannot compete with large companies better able to offer cash guarantees and present artificially low bids. There should never be a separation between Probation Services and other services but working together in a joined up way is often impossible when there is no local control of the system.
When even the potential bidders for new contracts are concerned (as featured in a report by Danny Shaw to the Today Programme on 29th July) about the viability it is ever more important to be clear about what would make a difference in the Probation System. Here are Napo’s four key demands for the future of Probation.
In re-designing Probation it is vital that lessons are learned from the profound failure of “Transforming Rehabilitation” (TR). Simply re-drawing the line between the public and private provision is not enough to repair all of the damage done.
Fully integrated service provision
In all of the varied criticisms of TR the split in service provision was universally acknowledged as a cause for poor service provision, increased bureaucracy, duplication of work and communication issues. We demand a fully integrated and unified service, with all core functions, including unpaid work and interventions, delivered from a single organisation in an integrated way. This doesn’t preclude the involvement of specialist provision by the third sector in a partnership arrangement but ensures that the management and delivery of core services is done in a joined up way.
In the public sector and never for profit but out of the civil service and released from prison
No one should profit from crime and so no one should profit from the delivery of Justice as a result of those crimes. The delivery of Probation Services belongs in the public sector however the move to the Civil Service as a result of TR has meant that the National Probation Service is now overly bureaucratic and follows a top down “command and control” culture. This means that the responsivity to local priorities that was once a key feature of Probation has been lost and innovation is reserved to those promoted to senior positions rather than open to all. Probation Officers are, as part of their training, encouraged to think critically about the work that they are doing and the systems in which they are doing it. This is almost impossible from within the Civil Service where criticism of the establishment is forbidden.
For many years Probation has struggled for recognition and focus against the forced partnership with the Prison Service. Although we recognise the advantages of working closely with our colleagues in the Prison Service we are not an adjunct to that service and while there are many areas where our work and ways of working, align there are also many areas where they do not. While the senior roles in HMPPS are predominantly held by those with a background in the Prison Service and while the second ‘P’ in HMPPS is generally silent it is difficult for the Probation Service to focus on developing its own culture and values.
Our demand is for Probation Services to exist outside of the Civil Service but in the public sector, as a non-departmental government body in the same way as organisations like CAFCASS and many others. This would allow for a degree of consistency through a national structure but would enable the development of culture and values that support Probation Practice.
Built on evidence based practice
There is a wealth of evidence about how to support people to desist from offending. Research into desistance and risk assessment and management is abundant. Little of this knowledge is being employed in redesigning Probation Services. Much of the pressure that staff leaving the service describe is about being asked to work in ways which they feel are not good practice at best or dangerous at worst. There is no sign of these lessons being learned. In addition there have been attempts to silence those who raise concerns about practice and the evidence of a need for change has been suppressed for example in the case of the report detailing concerns about SOTP in prisons.
At the same time as the feted reintegration of offender management work following TR the other big project is the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) project. OMiC builds in multiple changes of Offender Manager despite the fact that such changes were criticised so much in the TR model that it caused a significant change of policy and move to the reintegration.
All Probation Practice should be based on evidence and changes should be made to ways of working when indicated by research and evidence. Best practice should be modelled on this research and evidence, not the convenience of the organisation or the needs of a contract.
Rooted in the local community and partnering with local specialist providers
Probation is about people and people exist in communities. The link to the community is vital and must be prioritised. What works in one village, town or city might not work elsewhere. There must be a facility to respond to local needs and priorities and to shape service delivery to suit. Frontline practitioners must be empowered to work in a way that meets the needs of both their client and their community rather than to an agenda set centrally.
There are many third sector providers working in response to local needs that might be excellent partners for Probation Services, either as a contractor or in other arrangements. Sadly many of these very local services were simply frozen out of the system due to TR but where they exist they should be involved in the delivery of services in an appropriate way. Large contracts are not the way to deliver such innovative and responsive partnerships as smaller third sector organisations cannot compete with large companies better able to offer cash guarantees and present artificially low bids. There should never be a separation between Probation Services and other services but working together in a joined up way is often impossible when there is no local control of the system.
Katie Lomas
Napo National Chair
I think our best hope for a full reunification is not in NAPO's often ignored demands but a total failure in the Welsh model for outsourced CP and interventions!
ReplyDeleteIt will fail seetec are the first losers and they will not be the last.
DeleteWhat a mess. No quick fixes. Napo are absolutely right to make these demands. The tricky thing is that reunification in nps would only be a good thing if its a step en route to uncoupling probation from the civil service. Getting the political timing right on starting up that debate is probably well nigh impossible. And in the meantime more changes distress and disruption.
DeleteNo more Grayling as the one thing Boris the mad as a hatter approach got right was to sack that crook. The problem remains that we have private management who took over from the professional leads of real PO structured leaders. Sadly agencies like Seetec are desperately now trying to hang on like the old guard did before Graylings axe got them well paid off though. We all know it will be easier to sack off the privateers and that is coming soon .
Deletehttps://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/public-services_uk_5d3ff611e4b0d24cde05225a
Deletehttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/high-risk-sex-offenders-freed-without-support-b2nssnlh8
ReplyDeleteHigh-risk sex offenders are being released from a specialist prison without serving time at an open prison first and without being given support, the chief inspector of prisons has said.
DeleteIn a report published today Peter Clarke also said that staff at HMP Ashfield in Gloucestershire had not been trained in working with sex offenders and that much supervision was by messages rather than face to face.
Almost nine in ten of the 400 prisoners had been assessed as presenting a high or very high risk to the public. Mr Clarke said that there were not enough spaces in open prisons for sex offenders.
“This meant that Ashfield, a prison with no resettlement function, was having to release prisoners back into the community,” his report said.
“At the time of the last inspection the prison was releasing on average around four prisoners a month, but by the time of this inspection the figure had doubled. Given the high-risk nature of the vast majority of the prisoners at Ashfield, this was an issue of great concern.”
About 45 per cent of prisoners did not have an up-to-date risk assessment from the National Probation Service, the report added.
Serco, which runs the prison, had contracted out the supervision of sex offenders to Catch 22, a social enterprise, but staff “lacked the skills and confidence to work with complex high risk prisoners”. Serco is taking back the supervision of sex offenders.
Martin Booth, director of the prison, said: “I am pleased to say that we have already agreed plans to improve the training and supervision of staff working with men convicted of sex offences.”
https://www.fmj.co.uk/interserve-lands-place-on-prison-operator-services-framework/
ReplyDeleteInterserve Group Limited has been awarded a place on the Ministry of Justice’s £4 billion Prison Operator Services Framework agreement.
DeleteInterserve is one of six providers to be accepted onto the framework, which is part of the Government’s flagship programme to deliver up to 10,000 new, modern, and decent prison places.
The framework enables Interserve to enter into mini-competitions for the provision of operational custodial services and facilities management services at the new prisons at Wellingborough and Glen Parva and potentially existing privately-operated prisons that are approaching the end of their contracts.
The international support services, construction and equipment services group has extensive experience in the justice sector. The business runs five Community Rehabilitation Companies that provide probation services to 25 per cent of low and medium risk offenders across the country. Interserve also runs an employment centre at HMP Berwyn that helps train prisoners to gain the skills they need to find employment post-release.
Ian Mulholland, Managing Director, Public Sector, said: “We are committed to the justice sector and are therefore delighted to be accepted onto the Prison Operator Services Framework because this will enable us to grow our business in a key strategic area for the company.
“We have gained considerable experience delivering services in prisons because of the Through the Gate service we deliver as part of our CRC contracts. We believe our innovative approach to delivering rehabilitative services marks us out from our competitors and makes us the ideal choice for further expansion in this market.”
Ian Mulholland and the rest of Interserve management are completely deluded - TTG continues to be " shit " - we have a complete lack of staff of all grades within CGM and I think most staff are at breaking point if not already broken - all of this just seems to be going from bad to worse regardless of the unions , JSC and the NAO - the MOJ and the rest of the fuckwits are carrying on regardless
ReplyDeleteI have heard today via team meeting that this whole new 'getting back together' is actually a 'merger'! Doesn't a merger normally bring job losses too. Great ... again!
ReplyDelete