On the day Russell Webster issues an invitation to submit questions to the two top civil servants tasked with designing the new-look probation service, having regard of course to the caveat:-
Conclusion"I would ask you to bear in mind that like all civil servants, Jim and Ian are charged with delivering the blueprint agreed by Ministers. It is the Government which has decided on the new model which, while returning offender management to public sector probation, still maintains a private/voluntary sector market for the delivery of unpaid work and accredited programmes."it might be useful to consider a few things, such as Robert Buckland's speech at a conference organised by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and doesn't mention probation once:-
In closing let me say once again how grateful I am to the Panel – for their ongoing work and for today’s conference. And let me also say how grateful I am to each of you for your individual contributions – particularly to the families of those who have taken their own lives.
As human beings, I think that drive to protect people – to offer them dignity even in punishment – is a very natural one. I am committed, as you all are, to making prisons safer for people who might be at risk of harming themselves – not to say we moved the numbers, but so that we can save lives. We will only achieve that by working together…
… with the police, the courts and clinicians, to determine whether diversion into treatment is a more appropriate step than custody…
… with mental health experts, families, and the third sector who can ensure that we step in at the right times and with the right interventions…
… with prison officers who can encourage and reassure those at risk and do so with improved training that is based on the very best practice…
… with healthcare partners who can help us to deliver effective support based on individual needs…
… and with any stakeholder who has a contribution to make in keeping people in custody safe.
As we continue to work together during my tenure as the Secretary of State, please know that my door is always open to those who want to make a difference. Thank you.
--oo00oo--
Then, continuing to benefit from MoJ funding, I see Clinks are gearing up up to make sure the voluntary sector get a bigger slice of the action:-
Today we are announcing some exciting changes to Clinks which we believe put the charity in a better position to best serve the voluntary sector working in the criminal justice system into the future. We are restructuring our senior staffing to provide dedicated leadership on each of our five strategic objectives.
We are 9 months into the delivery of our new strategy which we developed following an intensive listening exercise with the voluntary sector and partners. Much of what's in our strategy represents business as usual in many ways but there are also areas where we aim to develop more. These include how we better support organisations in specific localities and whether we need to provide more networks for organisations who work with specific groups of people or in specialised ways.
Future plans
We are making these changes to continue to be the charity that organisations can rely and call on in good times and in challenging times. We are building on success over 21 years, growing from a small project to an established national charity serving a diverse sector across England and Wales.
In this restructure we have created a new senior leadership group which includes our CEO and two new roles to work alongside our Board on specific strategic areas and objectives. See our new structure here.
Our Director of Influence and Communications will develop and deliver plans and lead teams to:
- Promote the work of the voluntary sector in the criminal justice system, with a particular focus on smaller specialist organisations
- Represent and advocate for the voluntary sector and its service users.
- Support voluntary organisations working in the criminal justice system with individuals and their families
- Identify challenges and opportunities facing the voluntary sector and its service users, and work together to find and implement solutions.
We have also created two new dedicated roles to assist the CEO and the Board with delivery on Clinks’ 5th strategic objective “Clinks being effective, efficient and professional in its work and operations. Ensuring we have the systems, resources and processes to achieve maximum impact”. A Head of Business Development will lead on development of Clinks' future projects and income generation and a Head of Corporate Services will manage all of our resources in line with best practice. Victoria Sadler is taking on the role of Head of Corporate Services and we look forward to seeing her develop our internal management systems so that we can ensure we are always managing what we have as best we can.
We are now on the lookout for new talent for our team to take on the two new roles of Director of Support & Development and Head of Business Development. These roles are essential to our further and future development and we are excited to see who we can welcome into our team to help make us better at what we need to do – be the backbone of a diverse and essential part of the voluntary sector for people who deserve nothing but the best in life.
We can't and don't want to do any of this alone and we'll rely on the support of our members, partners, funders and networks as much in the future as we do now and have done in the past. We look forward to working with you all to deliver on our strategy towards our goals and our vision of a vibrant, independent and resilient voluntary sector that enables people to transform their lives.
Anne Fox, Chief Executive Officer
--oo00oo--
Writing in the latest edition of the Probation Institute's magazine, in this extract Richard Garside from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies gives his analysis of the situation:-
And then there is the matter of the destruction of the probation service. In her final annual report as Chief Inspector, Glenys Stacey launched a stinging critique of the “irredeemably flawed” changes to probation, under the ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ programme. Probation leaders, she wrote, had been “required to deliver change they did not believe in, against the very ethos of the profession”. The changes had delivered a “deplorable diminution of the probation profession and a widespread move away from good probation practice”.
And then there is the matter of the destruction of the probation service. In her final annual report as Chief Inspector, Glenys Stacey launched a stinging critique of the “irredeemably flawed” changes to probation, under the ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ programme. Probation leaders, she wrote, had been “required to deliver change they did not believe in, against the very ethos of the profession”. The changes had delivered a “deplorable diminution of the probation profession and a widespread move away from good probation practice”.
Last year, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee concluded that the programme had “left probation services underfunded, fragile, and lacking the confidence of the courts”. Probation services, it stated, had “inexcusably... been left in a worse position than they were in before the Ministry embarked on its reforms”. The failure of the government to listen seriously to, and act on, these concerns, does not bode well for the implementation of the new probation model.
Probation arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland are not without their problems and challenges. Yet in neither jurisdiction has the service faced the state-sponsored sabotage visited upon the service in England and Wales.
Yet however accidental, incomplete and flawed the liberalism of the past decade, the next decade looks set to be very different. After a decade of no prison growth, the new government looks set to pick up where the Major, Blair and Brown governments left off, with plans by Boris Johnson’s government to build 10,000 new prison places, while also keeping open those dilapidated old Victorian prisons the Cameron and May governments had planned to close.
Yet however accidental, incomplete and flawed the liberalism of the past decade, the next decade looks set to be very different. After a decade of no prison growth, the new government looks set to pick up where the Major, Blair and Brown governments left off, with plans by Boris Johnson’s government to build 10,000 new prison places, while also keeping open those dilapidated old Victorian prisons the Cameron and May governments had planned to close.
Those familiar with the Ministry of Justice prison population projections will know that the latest projection, looking forward to 2024, estimates that the prison population will remain flat at around 81,000 – 82,000. If this is the case, why is the government planning to build 10,000 new prison places?
This is where the pledge to recruit 20,000 more police officers is significant. The criminal justice system is an interconnected set of institutions. Changes in one part have knock-on effects elsewhere. Giving evidence to the House of Commons Justice Committee in October 2019, Sir Richard Heaton, the Ministry of Justice Permanent Secretary, made explicit the link between increasing police officer numbers and the government’s plan to expand prison capacity:
“The other factor inflating the prison population will be the 20,000 additional police officers. It is hard to convert those into prison places because we do not know exactly what they will be doing in policing terms. Assuming that they arrest and charge people, we can expect the charge rate to go back closer to what it was in 2010. There is a very low charge rate at the moment. That is the thing driving the prison population, as well as the sentencing changes.”
In its 2019 General Election manifesto, Labour committed to expanding the police force by even more than the Conservatives. Had it pulled off an unlikely victory last December, a resumption of prison and criminal justice growth would have been likely. For all its radicalism on social and economic questions, an ongoing fidelity to key aspects of New Labour’s criminal justice world view remained one of Corbynism’s guilty secrets. Only time will tell whether, under a new leader, this will change.
In its 2019 General Election manifesto, Labour committed to expanding the police force by even more than the Conservatives. Had it pulled off an unlikely victory last December, a resumption of prison and criminal justice growth would have been likely. For all its radicalism on social and economic questions, an ongoing fidelity to key aspects of New Labour’s criminal justice world view remained one of Corbynism’s guilty secrets. Only time will tell whether, under a new leader, this will change.
Overlaying, and influenced by, these underlying policy agendas are all the immediate events and happenings any government has to respond to. These include, at the time of writing, controversial proposals retrospectively to extend the time in prison of those convicted of terrorism offences. I also am very concerned that we are at risk of slipping into a situation where shoot-to-kill becomes the default policing response to suspected terrorists. This must be resisted. We face a return to much more explicitly tough and punitive criminal justice policies.
An expanding criminal justice footprint – including more police officers and a growing prison population – is a sign of failure. The criminal justice system all too often picks up, through arrest, prosecution and punishment, many problems that would better be prevented or resolved through our health, education, housing and social welfare systems.
There will, though, be opportunities in the months and years to make the case for shrinking the criminal justice footprint, rebuilding trust, and developing a more balanced and holistic set of social policies to underpin a safer society. A government overtly committed to the opposite might, paradoxically, help to clarify the issues at stake.
There will, though, be opportunities in the months and years to make the case for shrinking the criminal justice footprint, rebuilding trust, and developing a more balanced and holistic set of social policies to underpin a safer society. A government overtly committed to the opposite might, paradoxically, help to clarify the issues at stake.
Richard Garside
--oo00oo--
And finally don't forget the police are continuing to fill the vacuum left by probation's retreat:-
--oo00oo--
And finally don't forget the police are continuing to fill the vacuum left by probation's retreat:-
"The police in various areas are paying private providers to run groups such as BBR bypassing Probation entirely. I think it is a little professionally embarrassing for the probation service to have this happen. Says a lot about how the police view the state of our service now."
That Daily Mirror piece referred to in the previous blog:
ReplyDeleteA shocking 309 people have been killed by offenders being monitored by private probation firms since the service was part-privatised.
Last year alone 84 were murdered – an average of one every four days.
Nadine Marshall, whose son Conner was beaten to death, said: “It’s tragic and unacceptable for the victims’ families.”
The mm whose son was killed by an offender being monitored by a private probation firm has told of her fury that such murders have soared under Tory outsourcing.
Last year 138 people were killed by monitored offenders, nearly double the toll of 71 in 2014.
Of last year’s victims, 84 – by far the majority – were killed by those under the watch of private community rehabilitation companies.
It means there was a murder every four days on average by criminals whose probation was outsourced.
Nadine Marshall, whose son Conner, 18, was an early victim of the system, said: “It’s tragic. Conner’s death was senseless and unnecessary. The lessons just aren’t being learned.”
Conner was beaten to death in Porthcawl, South Wales, in March 2015 by David Braddon, who was on probation at the time and is now serving a life sentence.
A total of 309 people have been murdered by criminals monitored by private firms in the six years since the shake-up, figures released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal.
It far outnumbers the 196 killed by those managed by the National Probation Service in the same period.
Nadine, who hopes to stand for Plaid Cymru in May’s Police and Crime Commissioner elections in South Wales, said: “It’s unacceptable for those victims’ families, it makes me so angry. What more proof do we need that there needs to be change?
"I can’t see how they can keep making statements saying that things are changing and money is going into probation when the figures don’t show that.
“We can’t just keep letting this happen and that is why I am going to try to help change things.”
Private CRCs manage some 150,000 medium and low-risk offenders while the Government’s NPS is responsible for 106,000 high-risk criminals.
Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts said: “The privatised probation experiment clearly hasn’t worked. Companies have clearly cut corners putting profit before people’s safety. The Ministry of Justice must act quickly to bring the whole probation back into the public sector and fund it properly.”
Last year’s toll of 84 killed by CRC-monitored offenders was double the 42 in 2015, the year after Chris Grayling ushered in the changes as Justice Secretary. Problems with the part-privatisation cost nearly £500million, the National Audit Office said.
Campaign group We Own It said: “Private probation companies cannot be trusted to keep the public safe.”
All probation will be put back in the public sector from December – but it is too late for the 309 victims.
The Ministry of Justice said: “We are bringing all offender management back under the National Probation Service and have 800 new probation officers in training. Less than 0.5% of offenders on probation are convicted of a serious further offence.”
309 under CRC supervision + 196 under NPS supervision
Delete505 in six years = av. 84 deaths a year
= 1 death every four days for the last six years
THAT is what the TR means across the probation spectrum. Its the widespread impact of TR to NPS as well as CRC probation provision.
Garside says:
"Probation leaders, [Stacey] wrote, had been “required to deliver change they did not believe in, against the very ethos of the profession”...
I disagree. Unlike the (no doubt selectively) principled civil servant Rutnam, senior probation staff across the UK accepted generous cash incentives from Government to implement TR.
Garside continues with Stacey's observations:
... The changes had delivered a “deplorable diminution of the probation profession and a widespread move away from good probation practice”.
Yes. Agreed 100%.
From this blog, Wednesday, 7 March 2018:
Probation is Dead
"Probation as a capitalised Noun no longer exists. The Tory assassins have completed their covert task.
Gawke is only the latest in a string of temps who have never mentioned 'Probation' once, let alone 'probation'. Even the other newcomer Rory Stewart - a half-decent constituency MP & an educated man who understands the importance of language in history - refuses to accept 'Probation' as a part of his job title. He knows its part of the Tory narrative to totally erase the left-leaning legacy. He is bright, and he is ambitious; so he plays ball.
The NPS is so very close to being completely absorbed into HMPPS; which will be re-branded - perhaps 'Her Majesty's Prison & Rehabilitation Service' - as Spurr's final spiteful legacy before he sails through the revolving door into a luxurious life of a gilt-edged pension, a knighthood, honorary membership of the LTA & numerous lucrative ACOBA-approved directorships.
The work that a probation service provider does is already being reinvented, diluted & ersatz academics undertaking the KSS^CRC experimental research will unveil groundbreaking revelations in the coming months."
As someone who believes that private, profit oriented companies should not be charged with delivering any of our public services, I certainly would not stand up for those running the privatised probation services.
ReplyDeleteI think too that the third sector has become little better the the giant outsourcers that seem to run everything in our lives in today's world.
But I take issue with the Mirrors article highlighted yesterday. I think it's important to highlight the damage and devestation privatising probation has caused, but that's only part of the story.
Richard Garside picks up on the part of the story that should be included in the Mirror article.
"The criminal justice system all too often picks up, through arrest, prosecution and punishment, many problems that would better be prevented or resolved through our health, education, housing and social welfare systems."
Many of the cases contained in that Mirror article had significant mental health and social issues, and to that end, whether it's the privatisation of probation services or the savage destruction of other public services, culpability lays with the State. They've laid the road that the CJS now travels along.
So whilst the likes of Working Links, Interserve and all the other profit leaches that feed from the public purse but have no interest in public concerns should rightly be held accountable and named and shamed, it should always be remembered that they are only there because the Government put them there.
Ultimately, responsibility belongs to the State, and I think the Mirror article should have pointed more in that direction.
And just incase Robert Buckland is reading. I'd like to say thank you for all you're doing in recruiting all these agencies and organisations to help offenders turn their lives around, but if I have a problem that may look like I'm about to fall of the straight and narrow I'd like to be able to speak to my probation officer about them. Thankyou.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/crime/derbyshire-offender-getting-hot-water-probation-service-because-nobody-will-pick-phone-court-hears-1982313%3famp
'Getafix
Well said, and accurate as always.
ReplyDeleteCurrent Cabinet Office Minister Gove encapsulates all that is wrong with the world in one simple phrase regarding the alleged behaviours of Priti Aunty:
ReplyDelete"We make no apology of having strong ministers in place."
Previous reworkings of Patel's career include:
1. The Jewish Chronicle - "Patel quit in November 2017 after it emerged that she held a series of meeting with Israeli leaders — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — about allocating aid to the Israeli army’s Syrian relief efforts, without properly informing the government.
Patel had apologized for holding 12 separate meetings during a family holiday to Israel in August of that year without notifying the Foreign Office or Downing Street in advance.
The Jewish Chronicle reported at the time that Patel had informed 10 Downing Street of the meetings and had been advised to keep a sit-down with Israeli Foreign Ministry official Yuval Rotem in New York off the list of meetings she disclosed to save face for the Foreign Office.”
2. Christians United For Israel - "Media outlets, social media and of course anti-Semitic Israel haters are smearing her name with information about her past “secret” meetings with Israel.
The truth, however, is that Priti Patel helped stop British taxpayer money going to Palestinian terrorism, she strengthened Britain’s relationship with Israel and visited an IDF field hospital that helped wounded Syrian civilians. Because of this, the anti-Israel lobby wanted her gone and used a technicality to oust her whilst smearing Israel’s at the same time."
An excellent appraisal of the wider issues of lobbyists & funded trips for MPs can be found here:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/we-cant-ignore-patels-background-in-britains-lobbying-industry/
And yes, this is ALL relevant to whether Probation has a future. The machinations of lobbyists, of covert funding & of vested-interest pressure group influence contributed to TR, the birth & funding of the CRCs and thus to the dismantling of the Probation profession.
Do not forget that the Cabinet Office (under the guiding hand of Grayling's chum Francis Maude) had its dabs all over the kickstart-funding of CRCs; they gave away the majority of the EVR cash when they handed out the Modernisation Fund monies. Its believed that some £16m in redundancy was paid to a select few, while the balance of the (estimated) £80m was simply given to the CRC owners to do as they wished.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51660696
ReplyDeleteAnother example of how privatisation works:
DeletePrince Fosu inquest: Man died 'in plain sight' at detention centre
At the centre, healthcare services were in "chaos" after the previous provider had been "sacked" the year before, a healthcare manager told the inquest.
The Home Office contracted the running of the centre to GEO Group UK Ltd, which contracted healthcare to Nestor Primecare Services Ltd.
It in turn contracted the recruitment of doctors to The Jersey Practice - a GP surgery in west London - which used a locum agency, Beacon Care Services Ltd.
A nurse assessed Mr Fosu in five minutes without seeing his medical notes, later telling the inquest she had done a "completely inadequate assessment" and was "out of her depth".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51715985
ReplyDeleteTwo men are being questioned under terror laws over an attack on a prison officer at a maximum security jail.
The officer suffered stab wounds to his head, chest and face as the cells were unlocked at HMP Whitemoor in March, Cambridgeshire, on 9 January.
The men, aged 24 and 26, were arrested on Monday on suspicion of conspiracy to murder and preparation of a terrorist act, the Metropolitan Police said.
They are alleged to have attacked an officer with improvised weapons.
The attackers were wearing fake suicide belts, police said at the time.
Three prison officers and a nurse also suffered injuries as they rushed to the aid of their stabbed colleague.
Both the arrested men are in custody in a London police station while inquiries continue.
HMP Whitemoor houses more than 400 Category A and B prisoners on three wings, including a number of the highest-risk inmates.
In February last year, a "small number" of prison staff there needed medical treatment after violence broke out.
The Daily Mail is reporting yet another murder committed by someone under supervision (NPS) and apportioning blame to the probation service.
ReplyDeleteConvicted killer was freed to murder his ex-partner after catalogue of probation service failures, reveals damning report
'Warning signs' were ignored that could have stopped Janet Scott's murder
She was killed by Simon Mellors, who had also killed his previous partner in 1999
Mellors took his life while awaiting his court date for the murder of Ms Scott
Telegraph 13 April 2018 • 1:10pm
DeleteA woman killed by a convicted murdered had complained to the probation service fearing for her life, her family have revealed.
Janet Scott, 51, was murdered in January after dating convicted killer Simon Mellors, and now her husband Chris Scott has told of how the probation service failed to protect his wife.
Simon Mellors, from Nottingham, murdered his former partner Pearl Black in 1999, then killed Mrs Scott after being released from prison on licence.
Mr Scott said Mellors threatened to kill them both and followed Mrs Scott to work before she died.
"If the probation service had done something and informed the police and had Mellors been arrested my wife would still be alive," said Mr Scott.
Speaking to the BBC he said that his wife knew Mellors was going to kill her. "She knew it was coming," he said.
"I said 'Look, you've got nothing to worry about, I'm here, I'm going to protect you, nothing is going to happen'."
Mellors was released from prison in 2014 and was in a relationship with Mrs Scott while she was temporarily separated from her husband in 2017, and killed her after she got back together with Mr Scott.
Mellors stabbed her at her home in Nursery Road, Arnold, Nottinghamshire, on 29 January then drove her towards Nottingham city centre.
She escaped and ran towards a traffic officer for help, but Mellors drove his car into both of them, injuring the traffic officer and killing Mrs Scott instantly.
Mellors died in prison after being charged with her murder and the attempted murder of the traffic officer. He is thought to have killed himself.
Mrs Scott’s sister Susan Thomson confirmed that complaints had been made about Mellors to his probation officer.
"I knew that my sister sent texts to the probation officer because she rung me up when she did it and told me so," said Mrs Thomson.
"I feel that Simon should have been told, or pulled in, or something done about it, while he was stalking my sister."
Before Mellors’ release Pearl Black's brother and sister, George and Mary Black, wrote to the Parole Board to warn them that he would kill again.
Ms Black said: "The Parole Board have let us down totally. The justice system has let us down by not listening to us when we warned them this man would commit murder again.
"Two good women died by the hands of this monster.
"The different agencies should have picked up on this because he had been stalking Janet."
The Ministry of Justice said a full review into the case is under way.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson added: "Serious further offences such as this are very rare, but each one is taken extremely seriously and investigated fully.
"A full review into this case is under way, and we will carefully consider the findings to make sure all possible lessons are learnt."
An inquest to examine the circumstances of Mrs Scott's death has also been opened and adjourned.
The main failings in the Janet Scott case
Delete1.) A mental health nurse, working with Janet, raised concerns to probation about Mellors’ controlling behaviour on a number of occasions. Had the risk been assessed as ‘imminent’ by probation, police could have been informed and he could have been recalled to prison.
2.) In mid-January, just before her death, Janet told probation her relationship with Mellors was over and complained that on two consecutive days Mellors had ‘stalked her’ to work at 4am.
He had even sat outside in his car. Probation said they told Mellors to stay away but never informed the police, which could have resulted in enforcement action.
3.) Mellors had been in a relationship with three women before Janet. In the first relationship, probation did not ask for any information about the woman even her full name.
No safeguarding checks were made, which the review called ‘a failing’ as Mellors posed ‘a significant threat to women and the risk to them escalated when he experienced rejection.’
4.) This continued into relationship number two when he told probation he had taken a woman back to his flat for ‘kissing and cuddling’.
Again probation did not ask for any identifying details, which the panel said should have been done.
Later, she complained that she did not feel safe and secure in his company.
Probation told Mellors not to contact her again but he ignored this and sent her a birthday card.
Again no enforcement action was taken. Instead, probation reduced his appointments, which the panel described as ‘a bad decision.’
5.) Mellors met a woman on a dating site and she had stayed overnight at his flat despite not disclosing his offending history, which he should have done.
The relationship ended when he disclosed his past. The panel said there appeared to be ‘no concern for her safety.’
6.) When Janet found out about his past, she asked probation ‘whether he would kill again.’ Probation recorded their answer as ‘nobody knows.’ They did, however, discuss warning signs and triggers with her.
7.) Despite clear warning signs that Mellors was showing controlling and coercive behaviour – and probation saying they would monitor the situation – no plan was drawn up.
8.) On January 25, the mental health nurse again complained to probation about the ‘unwelcome attention’ Janet was getting from Mellors which could be ‘construed as stalking.’
On the same day Mellors sent a text message to his probation officer saying he was going to Janet’s house to collect his things. Probation did not check with Janet and should have insisted he stay away, the panel said.
9.) The mental health nurse was under the impression that because the probation service knew about Mellors’ stalking behaviour he would be arrested as he was breaching the conditions of his licence.
The panel said the nurse took ‘significant’ steps to try and keep Janet Scott safe.
10.) The panel said there was ‘several warning signs’ and that Janet’s death ‘mirrored’ what happened to Pearl in 1999. They said probation did not ‘consider raising the level of his supervision by involving other agencies, particularly the police’.
They said ‘several significant opportunities to intervene in respect of domestic abuse were missed.’
The report stated: ‘The National Probation Service failed completely in its duty to involve other agencies in managing the risk he posed to women.
‘Warning signs were ignored.’
‘NPS Midlands took immediate disciplinary action in relation to the member of staff responsible for this case.’
‘NPS Midlands took immediate disciplinary action in relation to the member of staff responsible for this case.’
Deletethat's alreight then. No mention of oversight by a manager?
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/inspections/crcdlnr/
ReplyDeleteEast Midlands probation service must improve work to protect the public
DeleteA probation service in the East Midlands must improve the quality of its work to better protect the public, according to inspectors.
HM Inspectorate of Probation inspected the Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company (DLNR CRC) last autumn. Inspectors looked at 10 aspects of the CRC’s work and gave an overall ‘Requires improvement’ rating.
Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “We last inspected DLNR CRC in September 2018. Despite the action taken by senior leaders, the overall rating has not changed and this is disappointing.
“In particular, we are concerned by the quality of the CRC’s public protection work. The weak attention to safeguarding concerns and the lack of coordination with other agencies is this CRC’s Achilles’ heel. The CRC should improve the coordination of risk management with organisations such as the police and children’s social services to identify and manage potential risks of harm, and better protect the public.”
DLNR CRC supervises more than 8,400 low and medium-risk offenders across the four counties. These individuals are serving community sentences or preparing to leave or have left prison.
At the time of the inspection, frontline probation staff were responsible for an average of 58 cases each.
Inspectors noted a “deterioration” in the management of cases compared to the previous inspection.
Mr Russell said: “Probation staff assess, plan, deliver and review activity with individuals under supervision. This activity needs to strike the right balance between rehabilitation and public protection.
“In the inspected cases, we found the management of risk of harm was not good enough at every stage. We have, therefore, rated all four aspects of case supervision ‘Inadequate’ – our lowest possible grade.
“Following the 2018 inspection, we recommended the CRC improve its case management practices. Little progress has been made over the past year.”
Inspectors did note the CRC has some strengths.
Individuals can access a comprehensive range of services to support them to move away from offending and to lead crime-free lives. Examples include projects in Derby and Leicester to improve access to accommodation.
DLNR CRC also trains and supports individuals to become peer mentors, helping others to lead crime-free lives. Inspectors found this activity “impressive and innovative”.
The strongest area of performance is the Through the Gate service, which supports people as they prepare to leave prison and resettle in the community. The CRC received additional funding from central government in 2019, which has increased staff numbers working in this area and helped to set up initiatives to improve access to accommodation. As a result, the Inspectorate rated the Through the Gate service ‘Outstanding’.
DLNR CRC is owned by the Reducing Reoffending Partnership, which comprises one private company and two charities. The partnership also owns neighbouring Staffordshire and West Midlands Community Rehabilitation Company.
The National Probation Service will take over the management of all offenders in the community in England and Wales from next year. Planning has started with the Reducing Reoffending Partnership on the transition and inspectors noted the positive relationship between the two organisations.
Inspectors have made eight recommendations with the aim of improving probation services in the region.
ENDS
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2020/03/DLNR-yr-2-report-for-website.pdf
DeleteWhat a fun read.
Achievement of recommendations from the previous inspection, i.e. HMI Probation. (2019). An inspection of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company:
1. Ensure that the quality of assessment, planning, service delivery and reviewing is improved, to help keep actual and potential victims safe, drawing on individuals and their support networks, and contingency planning for when things change.
The CRC has made no progress on this recommendation
2.Provide enough staff and equip them with the knowledge and skills to carry out effective work to keep other people safe.
The CRC has made no progress on this recommendation
Q: So if they couldn't meet these fundamentally basic requirements of a probation services provider some four-plus years into their contract, the CRCs were paid to do what, exactly?
Interesting comment from someone on tv his morning (no idea who, sorry - it was an interview with an English-speaking journalist on the Euronews channel). Its paraphrased, not verbatim:
ReplyDelete"Since 2010 the Labour Party have failed to hold this Tory government to account but it seems its the Covid-19 virus that will expose the vast chasms of chaos, complacency & incompetence hidden beneath the Tories' hardnosed facade - the lack of investment in healthcare & the NHS, the lack of social care structures, the laziness & lack of scrutiny associated with reliance on outsourcing, gifting the UK's fiscal resources to overseas providers, severing essential links with European partners..."
What Future UK plc?