As the official MoJ cheer-leader for the Third Sector, what Clinks have to say about TOM is of vital importance to all probation staff in the run-up to the next round of privatisation. Here's their most recent blog post:-
Today Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) published a target operating model for probation. It gives an update on the latest developments in the design of the future probation model which is anticipated to be fully operational from 2022.
Broadly the model design outlined in the target operating model is in line with what has been shared by HMPPS previously in the Draft Operating Blueprint and through market engagement information. There are, however, some important updates to the detail and in the coming week we’ll publish a full briefing with more in-depth analysis of the target operating model and its implications for the voluntary sector. We will also provide feedback on these implications to HMPPS and advocate for them to be taken into account as the model develops further.
In this blog I outline some of the new and welcome things to look out for in the target operating model as well as a brief overview of some of our ongoing concerns, which our forthcoming briefing will provide further analysis of.
Language
The target operating model marks a welcome shift in the language the government uses to describe people under probation supervision. ‘Offender managers,’ as they were previously known, are now referred to as ‘probation practitioners’ who provide ‘sentence management’ rather than ‘offender management’. Those under probation supervision are referred to as individuals or people.
We’re really pleased to see that HMPPS have taken this opportunity to review the language it uses, so as not to label and stigmatise people as ‘offenders’. This more closely aligns with the voluntary sector’s values and we hope this is the start of a wider shift in the department’s approach to people in the criminal justice system.
Business planning
Clinks has recommended to HMPPS that an overarching, national strategy should be developed for the National Probation Service (NPS) from which each regional NPS area should develop local strategic plans. This would ensure a balance of local responsivity with national priorities and make commissioning intentions clear and transparent.
We are pleased to see the target operating model outline that each NPS area will implement an ongoing business planning cycle that assesses service need and service provision and supports commissioning and decision-making by regional NPS leadership. The business planning cycle consists of four phases: assess; co-design and commission; deliver; and review.
We really welcome that as part of this cycle, regional NPS leadership will be expected to co-design and review services with stakeholders. This will support probation to be more responsive to changing local needs and encourage more joined up working. We are encouraging HMPPS to specifically name the voluntary sector as a stakeholder in this context to make sure that the sector is recognised as more than just a delivery partner. We’ve recommended the same for service users.
The business cycle will culminate in annual published plans for each NPS area which will help improve transparency to delivery organisations and other relevant stakeholders.
Grants
Clinks has had ongoing concerns throughout the development of the new probation model about the lack of attention paid to grants. With such a heavy focus on contracts we’ve been concerned that this would lead to the creation of model that isn’t suitable for grant making which would in turn present a significant barrier to the involvement of small and specialist organisations.
A lack of grant funding has been one of the key reasons why involvement of the voluntary sector, particularly smaller ones, has been so limited in the current probation model, so it’s really important in the new system that this is addressed.
This is why we are pleased to see the target operating model make reference to the fact that commissioners will be able to award both contracts and grants via the Dynamic Framework. Commissioners will be given Dynamic Framework procurement documentation that has criteria to support them in determining whether grants or contracts are the most appropriate approach.
We are keen to support HMPPS to further develop the detail of this commitment in order for grants to be better utilised in the future of probation and to support greater involvement of small voluntary organisations.
Equalities
There will be dedicated equalities manager post in each NPS division. We hope it will be a sufficiently senior level to demonstrate a real commitment from probation to deliver on its Public Sector Equality Duty and make meaningful improvements to disparities in the criminal justice system.
The regional probation directors for each NPS division have overarching responsibility for the relevant recommendations of the Lammy Review. The Lammy Review recommendations however were written for the current probation model. The technicality of them will not apply to the new system. We hope the plans for the new model will be updated to require probation to take responsibility for implementing the spirit of the Lammy review and not limit its work on addressing racial disparity to those specific recommendations.
Similarly the intentions for regional probation directors to take responsibility for delivering the Female Offender Strategy are not without issue. There is insufficient detail about how the new probation model will meet the specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and which aspects of the strategy it will support. Most importantly there is still no information from the Ministry of Justice on what further investment will be made to support the strategy. If the only investment is from the new probation model, the intentions of the strategy will not be achieved.
Ongoing areas of concern
Much of the target operating model confirms developments that HMPPS have been sharing in previous publications and via its market engagement webinars and updates. There are a number of areas we continue to have concerns about:
- Pre-sentence reports – there appears to be a lack of progress made with HM Courts and Tribunal Service on this issue. We are concerned not to see a stronger commitment on reducing the percentage of fast, oral pre-sentence reports.
- The Dynamic Framework – the proposed model is too complex and contract-focused to fully support voluntary sector involvement, especially for small organisations.
- Commissioning of day one services – we are concerned about the impact on the availability of services led by and for people from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people because they are not being considered for commissioning specifically for day one of the new model.
- The new resettlement model – we have concerns about the practicalities of community-based probation practitioners reaching in to support every person in prison for up to 10 months and being responsible for co-ordinating activities in prison.
- Transition planning - there has not been enough attention paid to the impact of transition on current voluntary sector providers and the knock on effect this will have on continuity for service users and the available market of providers for the future model.
What next?
We appreciate the probation reform programme is moving at speed and things are in a constant state of development. It can be time consuming to keep on top of it all, so Clinks will continue to support the voluntary sector to stay updated on the key information. Make sure you keep an eye on Twitter, Light Lunch and our dedicated page on probation.
Look out for a briefing this week which will provide much more information and analysis on the proposals so far for the new probation model.
Clinks
Sounds like Clinks have filled the vacuum left by napo's now familiar silence:
ReplyDelete- We’re really pleased to see that HMPPS have taken this opportunity to review the language it uses
- There will be dedicated equalities manager post in each NPS division. We hope it will be a sufficiently senior level to demonstrate a real commitment from probation to deliver on its Public Sector Equality Duty... [and] the relevant recommendations of the Lammy Review
- We are concerned not to see a stronger commitment on reducing the percentage of fast, oral pre-sentence reports
- the proposed model is too complex and contract-focused
- we are concerned about the impact on the availability of services led by and for people from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people
Nothing from Napo yet a good initial critique from others. It illustrates the abilites are at crisis level for unions.
DeleteI read quite a lot last night on the issues faced by involving the third sector in the CJS. There's a lot of information to be found from a variety of sources.
ReplyDeleteI recall the significant reputational damage some third sector organisations suffered by taking DWP contracts for the Work Programme. (Grayling again), but despite that they were all still chomping at the bit for TR contracts.
My personal view is that the third sector has modeled itself to closely with the large multinationals that are only profit orientated.
Private providers bid for contracts solely for profit motives, that's a given, but what's the motives of the third sector if its not only profit?
There's a little paper from the University of Leeds that gives some food for thought on some of the problems that may lay ahead, but there's a lot more to be found elsewhere too.
third_sector_in_criminal_justice_briefing_paper.pdf
'Getafix
As usual, excellent work 'Getafix - will probably use that shortly. Cheers.
Delete"My personal view is that the third sector has modeled itself too closely with the large multinationals that are only profit orientated."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Without having read those papers, I'd suggest its often the vanity/ego of the 3rd sector 'CEO' that wants to align him/herself with those global models, hence the unsustainable salaries we now see in the 3rd sector, which means they're having to chase whatever money is on offer.
something from napo, but not exactly relevant to today's blog subject, sorry...
ReplyDelete"CRC and NPS staff who are in an over-supply situation following mapping/matching will inevitably find themselves in a redundancy situation, because their existing job will have been abolished, or will be abolished in 2021. This will require agreement on the redundancy process to be applied, however, at the very least, the staff who are in over supply must be offered the VS/VER option which we are seeking to negotiate as part of the Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement..."
https://www.napo.org.uk/sites/default/files/ACO%20Consultation%20OM%20transfer%20PDU%20structure%20.pdf
I’d be up for redundancy
DeleteMe too but what chance have we. Napo info from where. If no job in NPS who will sack staff CRC NPS . Is it not fairer to seek volunteers or it is supposed to be voluntary first so anyone can apply to go. Are they going to fiddle it and what about pension.
Delete"napo info from where"
Deletefrom link:
https://www.napo.org.uk/sites/default/files/ACO%20Consultation%20OM%20transfer%20PDU%20structure%20.pdf
weirdly its the same link as in the post above.
Thank you. Bloody hell that Napo response is nothing but an apology for looking daft. Just a page and a half the big cheese excelled himself.
DeleteAnyone in striking distance of Keswick's Theatre By The Lake today?
ReplyDeletePeter Stanford - Care or Custody: Can Prisoners be Rehabilitated?
12.45pm |Main House £11.00
With half of all prisoners back behind bars within a year of release, the challenge of reforming those in jail is urgent. Peter Stanford is the biographer of the Labour cabinet minister and lifelong prison reformer, Lord Longford, and now runs the rehabilitation charity that carries his name. He explores how a commitment to offering second chances to prisoners can change them and benefit society as a whole.
“If we are really concerned with the reform of prisoners, what we do when they emerge from custody is at least as important as what we do for them while they are inside” Lord Longford
DeleteTook a gamble & managed to get there just as they were closing the doors; not a particularly inspiring event. It reinforced my belief that no-one really knows or cares about the work of probation. Better to have sexy well-connected people doing good works.
Stanford is a Telegraph journo, author & generally priveleged white male living in London
(http://www.peterstanford.co.uk/biography.php)
His ramblings were primarily a PR puff for the Longford Trust, whilst sharing his personal knowledge of the victims & others involved in the 2019 killings in London (Fishmongers Hall) - "I should have been there but was delayed"; tasteless titbits journalism that elicited gasps & murmurs from the auditorium.
He mentioned probation about three times in an hour - once in passing, once in relation to the PO managing Usman Khan's case ("I hope they don't blame him") and then with praise (bland, but it was still praise) for the work of probation in answer to an audience question ("what do you think of the work of the probation service?"), although he mistakenly thinks that prisons & probation are good bedfellows based upon a Scandinavian model. He had suitably harsh words for Grayling and Truss but didn't really paint a clear picture of the true nature of the rehabilitation crisis.
Everything was portrayed as opportunities for Longford Trust mentees to shine with their voluntary high-flying mentors in The City (bankers, barristers, etc).
Audience average age was probably 70. Some audience members contributed - one said he'd been a prison psychologist since the 60's; one said he'd been imprisoned for some months in Durham; one asked Stanford's opinion of the probation service (a single person put their hand up when he asked if there were any Probation Officers in the room); one seemed keen to assure everyone that sex offenders can't be rehabilitated; and one was very cross to hear that "all our terrorist prisoners are kept together in one jail" (per Stanford's description of Whitemoor, which he says is "a terrifying place").
The question wasn't really addressed much.
Stanford is a patron of Ways with Words, the organisers of the event.
Its a bit like ComicRelief syndrome - extraordinary people donate their own lifetimes to influencing & changing lives, grubbing away in the dark corners of society & being treated with contempt whilst working for a minimum wage pittance BUT...
Delete... once a year the massively overpaid media types fill our telly screens with their carefully crafted moments of personal crisis and we joyfully hand over £Millions.
Those £Millions are used to bail out the shitty government of the day & absolve them of their obligation to look after the nation with the nation's own funds...
... the very same public funds the utter arseholes in power have frittered away on stupid vanity projects, given away to global corporations, gifted to chums or simply fraudulently helped themselves to.
I was pleased to hear on tonight's Panorama programme the parallel drawn between the DWP's shit attitude to disability & the 'hostile environment' perpetrated by the Home Office.
May, Grayling & PritiAunty have more in common than we think!
Just a quick reference back to the SFO review on McCann. I'm pleased that the inspectorate don't investigate air crashes, because otherwise the Boeing 737 Max would not have been grounded by deep flaws in its software. It would have been the pilot's fault. We would never learn anything about aviation safety: it's always the person at the wheel who failed. And that's the probation inspectorate for you. Blame the individuals. By all means make asides about resources and excessive demands, but don't include these in the explantions as to where responsibility lies. What a crazy system as well, that has supervising officers running into double figures and multiple middle management involvement. And it's all too easy for the inspectorate to come along months later, second-guessing earlier decisions with the benefit of hindsight. There may be some dysfunctioning staff in probation, but it's also apparent that the overwhelming majority are struggling to operate within a dysfunctional system - when something like seventy percent of staff are telling inspectors that their caseloads are unmanageable, why can't they stop pussyfooting and press the 'irredeemably flawed' button.
ReplyDeleteThis is an old article about investigating child protection, but until the probation inspectorate starts to ask 'why' instead of 'who' history SFOs will keep falling out of the sky.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/03/serious-case-review-child-protection