That HMI report really does make for very uncomfortable reading and the following gives an eloquent flavour of how the command and control civil service ethos is the real problem here:-
Personally what the HMIP report has highlighted for me is the sheer lack of investment in post-qualification training, and particularly training about delivering supervision sessions and sentence plans and reflective practice in a meaningful way....indeed the bedrock of social work practice we were only just discussing here a few weeks ago. The whole ethos of the organisation has been "refer to another organisation" and lo and behold, there are few which deal with the issues of helping people to deal with traumas associated with racism or overcoming barriers to racism.
The little training there is has become focussed on processes...do your CRISSA in this way; make sure your risk assessment looks like that; you MUST it's MANDATORY to do a very basic child protection training online, or a very brief electronic overview telling you what "unconscious bias" is. Their solution to everything has either been investment of millions in electronic solutions such as "my learning", the Parole writing tool or the EPF tool and whatnot; or commissioning services via "other agencies". The solution is never to equip staff with skills they so sorely lack.
When was the last time we had meaningful ongoing professional training which facilitates and engages in reflective practice about race, dealing with racism and cultural prejudice; investing in us, as a staff group, in how to work with people to overcome these barriers and other barriers and the trauma experienced by so many, in this case relating to those of BAME backgrounds; when are we equipped to address these things directly rather than farming them off to "keyworkers" in other agencies? When was the last time we had such ongoing professional training? And then they say our expertise is in "managing risk" - how exactly? By writing a CRISSA entry?
I fear what's coming - a massive round of "let's talk diversity" sessions (they've already been advertised in London), massive pressure to "update statistics in Delius", coupled with a new round of commissioning so that volunteer mentors "specialised" in working with BAME people can do work that we are so poorly equipped to deliver directly, or possibly a "ten session toolkit" chucked on the intranet. Just think - when was the last time you had training in skills for delivering work with your supervisees or in reflective practice so sorely called for from HMIP? And if you were around long enough, did SEEDS really provide that to you?
How painful to read comments of service users in the report: “I wanted support for my childhood trauma, but I have not been referred to anyone or anything”.....and another, who pretty much sums up his feelings about attending probation as:
"I have no idea of their purpose. I just turn up. I tell them a bunch of lies and I go home”.
So sad.
An honest exposition and the reason why staff cannot any difference in their job between grades. It awful and clients get do and say as they please while no training perpetuates deeper problems.
ReplyDeleteTransforming Rehabilitation explained:
ReplyDelete"I have no idea of their purpose. I just turn up. I tell them a bunch of lies and I go home".
And if it were possible to look at that person's case records there would not be a single typo, no form incomplete, all risk assessed, all boxes ticked, with management oversight by one of our excellent leaders noting: "a well managed case, no concerns".
It used to be that HMIP gave advance notification of cases to be inspected & thus all records would be as close to immaculate as possible at the time of any inspection. Presumably that's still the case?
So how much more worrying is it that HMIP make such critical observations of cases & case records that have have been polished to a mirror finish in advance of scrutiny. What about the reality of the day-to-day grind trying to complete records on an impossible caseload, happy to accept the lies of those under supervision because of the outstanding assessments, incomplete forms, looming deadlines, threat of capability, growing list of unread emails marked 'urgent' or 'critical'...
HMIP should be empowered to arrive unannounced & look at any case record there & then with the relevant case manager, no line manager in tow or glaring over a shoulder. That would give a true measure of the state of probation today. Not even Justin would be able to be equivocal about the picture such an inspection would paint.
And thus no surprise, of course, that actual practice is way below par. You can fudge records & data, and presumably you can brief practitioners - and service users if you were so inclined - but the harsh reality of poor practice, of attitudinal bias & of peoples' bad experiences are hard to cover up for long.
DeleteJust think about most interviews/sessions with people on your caseload - more often than not 'the truth will out', especially if a skilled practitioner is at work.
I personally wish TR had never happened, but I do now want the utter clusterfuck that is the TR train-wreck to be exposed by HMIP & others, in its full gory glory. I want Justin & others to shine a very bright light on the falsehoods, the deceptions & the abuse that exemplify TR - from concept to delivery.
I don't expect it will happen BUT it would be justice delivered if the charlatans, the liars & the pretenders in positions of power & authority that perpetrated & imposed the TR myth were collectively named, shamed & thrown out - without the baubles & benefits they think they are entitled to.
The clouds are rolling in, the darkness is gathering - its time for Truth To Power.
Problems? What problems? We've regained our sovereignty, we're rebuilding the Empire - just send them offshore...
ReplyDelete"Asylum seekers could be sent to processing centres abroad under the home secretary’s plans to overhaul the immigration system, according to reports.
The British overseas territory of Gibraltar is a location under consideration by officials, according to the Times, as well as the Isle of Man and other islands off the British coast."
A Scilly idea?
A fascinating read here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/mar/18/all-hail-the-clown-king-how-boris-johnson-made-it-by-playing-the-fool
Hamlet: "And let those that play
your clowns speak no more than is set down for them;
for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to
set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh
too; though, in the mean time, some necessary
question of the play be then to be considered:
that’s villanous, and shows a most pitiful ambition
in the fool that uses it."
A Modern Translation might be:
"let those that play the comical characters
say no more than is written in the script, no ad-lib, for though they
might make a small group of friends in the audience laugh,
the rest of the audience misses the important plot points of the play.
This is disgraceful, and shows that the actor is a pathetic attention seeker."
or even:
"Make sure that the clowns do not ad-lib, since some of them will make certain dumb audience members laugh mindlessly at them, while an important issue in the play needs to be addressed. It’s bad behavior for an actor, anyway, and displays a pitiful ambition to hog the limelight on stage."
Yet despite the weight of evidence & the many disparaging observations of the Etonian duffer's role the UK electorate seems to want him where he is; they seem to want an apparently innocuous, vacuous buffoon running the country with his studied tousled naughty-boy hair, his vicious playground jibes & petulant pout.
I'm left in angry bewilderement.
What a brilliant shot at this lot thanks for the laughter. On a darker side of the same coin and I am a labour supporter perhaps it is exactly what we need in power. I don't mean they are preferred by all than starmer likeable or not his time won't come. the country has to endure the consequence of its foolish voting. It tries to say they need more time the pandemic slowed brexit ruined trade whatever but in time. In time it will be the Tories eating off the backs of the new to be super poor. They all need to experience the pain of the Tories worst practices in the long haul untill they realise it was not a mistake or covid or they needed leeway. It's because they lie cheat and are corrupted and it will always remain wrong to put any Tory in charge of this countries needs or its people. We need a new system as the Tories will be back again and again as the naivety of the voter is double or quits .
DeleteI don't recall this, but it's dated June last year, probably buried under covid news and coming out of the first lockdown.
ReplyDeleteI does seem though that only 9mths ago the issue of race and probation was raising serious concern.
Wonder what actions were taken at the time?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/801451.stm
'Getafix
22nd June 2000 'Getafix - but I don't recall it either.
DeleteProbation service 'racist'
A damning report on the Probation Service says it is "infected" by racism.
The Chief Inspector of Probation Sir Graham Smith says little progress has been made on race equality in 10 years.
The Home Office Minister, Paul Boeteng said it was "sad and shaming. There has been a systematic failure to address issues of race and racial discrimination in an adequate but appropriate way," he said.
"Racism itself has infected the service and the quality of it to a quite unacceptable degree. We are simply not prepared to tolerate a level of failure on the scale reflected in this report."
Probation inspectors say they were shocked at what they found. White officers were uncomfortable at dealing with black offenders, fearing accusations of being racist, the report said.
The inspectors were particularly concerned that pre-sentence reports compiled by probation officers on ethnic minority offenders were of a poorer quality than those on white offenders. Such reports are crucial in helping the courts decide what sentence to pass. Mr Boateng said this could help explain the harsher penalties handed down to black offenders.
'Culture of complacency'
Sir Graham also said black probation officers faced discrimination within their own service. After blazing a trail for equal opportunities in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a culture of "complacency" has set in, he added. Sir Graham's review found that too many black officers were failing their probationary year in the job and those who did stay on lost out on promotion. A disproportionate number also face disciplinary proceedings, according to the review - ordered in the light of the Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence case.
The National Association of Probation Officers called for action to address the problem. "The probation service pioneered equal opportunities and it is still well ahead of other agencies, but Napo is deeply concerned about the number of black staff failing their probationary year," spokesman Harry Fletcher said. "The service needs to re-examine its policies on promoting and retaining staff."
None of Britain's 54 probation chiefs is black, and only a handful of their 200-odd assistants come from ethnic minorities, Sir Graham's report found.
Between 15% and 16% of the prison population is black but only half that figure find their way on to community probation projects.
Sorry. Wouldn't have flagged it if I hadn't mistaken 2000 for 2020.
DeleteStill, 20 years on it seems its an issue that has survived and wethered all the reorganisations and changes that probation has been subjected to.
'Getafix
Oh no don't apologise! We just have conveniently poor memories it seems...
DeleteIf "white officers were uncomfortable at dealing with black offenders, fearing accusations of being racist" according to Graham Smith's 2020 report, was that relevant to the conclusion that the Probation Service was racist? Was that discomfort not valid. In fact was Graham Smith's conclusion (that staff must be racist in that scenario) only likely to validate the discomfort apparently felt by white staff at that time?
ReplyDeleteI don't think a great deal more has been done in 20 years to address that particular dynamic, and I am certainly aware that a fear of accusation continues to influence decisions and actions of white OMs and white managers alike. It worries me that no inspection then or now can be truly balanced in view of this. Weighed down by similar fears, an inspectorate can only ever reach for more and more extreme conclusions about Probation failings, and how much more needs to be done to address racism to avoid the finger being pointed at them too.
The examples given in the recent inspection regarding the treatment of black staff by white staff are depressing, but are they extreme and isolated examples, or truly reflective of Probation Service culture. I have honestly never witnessed or been aware of anything like those examples in 30 years of working in Probation (experienced it with prison staff in the 90s but not their Probation counterparts). London, where I was based for many years, recruits a disproportionate number of BAME staff (over-represented at all levels compared to local demographic) with a majority of OMs now from non-white backgrounds. BAME OMs are disproportionately subject to HR processes - but this is still the case when their managers are also from BAME backgrounds (as evidenced from HMPPS figures in 2019). It is very simple and safe to claim racism is the explanation, but is that a complete and honest picture. For me it definitely isn't.
Sorry in my extensive service since the early 80s white institution racism is a feature of the area. Several vicious cases. Areers destroyed. Po on po standards and school teacher approaches. Several tribunals one the worst ever read. Also external investigators have found staff openly collude and hide evidence from the inquiry at managerial level. Outcomes a lot of brushing under carpet and the staff gotten rid of and a few paid off to go. No action on perpetrators . There are hundreds of secreted cases. If you have not seen it what direction or detail is being looked at. It is simple minorities do not do well in probation full stop.
DeleteI agree with 19.39...for me the methodology of the report didn't support the conclusions drawn, with a conscious assumption that racism was behind the issues...it may well be, but I didn't feel the evidence as presented supported those conclusions. For instance, they looked at 52 PSR's and felt these were of worse quality than the standard seen in their usual inspections. However, the assessors knew they were "rating" PSR's about BAME individuals, and knew they were marking them for the purpose of a report about equality and discrimination. What they didn't do was "blind mark" 52 PSR of BAME individuals and 52 white individuals, with names and ethnicities removed. They also appeared to introduce issues relating to working with foreign national offenders - so not understanding their cultural backgrounds or dealing with trauma suffered through issues experienced in home countries - issues of use of interpreters was brought into this - to me this was a slightly different issue; and again, did they compare the way that trauma or abuse is dealt with in a sample of "white" service users. The survey of staff also excluded a comparison with the answers of white staff members - so they asked BAME staff whether (for example) they felt the competition for promotion was fair and open and a sizeable number said it was not - but we have no way of knowing how white staff members may also have responded. There was an assumption that BAME staff members were somehow held back or not favoured, even though the report itself acknowledged that more BAME staff are promoted to "acting up" positions than non-white staff. Finally, the assumption of discrimination was also made when looking at assessments - they didn't consider that the particular "box" in OASYS is a) not actually part of the assessment b) that this "box" tends to be empty or poorly completed for everyone and c) OASYS is the issue, rather than the staff completing it. Finally, in terms of not considering issues of discrimination and race in PSR and assessments I was left wondering exactly what they felt needed to happen.
DeleteI absolutely expected that reaction from some quarters. It's difficult to express an opinion or raise questions outside of the expected narrative without then facing accusations (which are implied, if not downright explicit in 20:28's post). The accusations don't have to be supported by evidence. It's enough to express disbelief and outrage, with insinuations of insensitivity or poor insight on the part of the person who even dares to suggest anything else. And people know very well that such accusations can be career-limiting or career-ending. The result is that nobody dares speak honestly and openly about their experiences and opinions. It's impossible to imagine that Justin Russell's recent findings would not have been shaped, at least in some part, by a strong desire to avoid similar accusations at all costs.
ReplyDeleteThere is no accusation or insinuation. The post pondered what direction people might see things. Both the last two posts
DeleteRehearse defensive and critical observation. Diminishing the methodology of the report offering alternate process offering temporary promotion as a positive. Stopping short minorities ought to be grateful perhaps. Suggesting no evidence and fearful to share opinions. This is incredibly hostile to the very real truth probation it's staff and activities continue to work against people of difference. Failing to respect the report the researchers work in good faith by these posters excuses in argument is sort of similar to fact denial. 2158
Is incredibly combative. Raising the question could they or wouldn't they see the obvious even if able to look for it. What a real pity.
"White Lives Matter"; "Not all men are rapists"; "Some of my best friends are gay"
ReplyDeleteThere's a familiar cry of outrage when issues of discrimination are occasionally identified.
Is it something you, the outraged individual, face every hour of every day? Does it leave you fearing for your mental health, your safety, your life? Whenever you leave the house do you have to prepare yourself for verbal abuse, being ignored, feeling threatened or actual physical assault? Do you carry your keys in your fist walking from the bus stop to your front door after work? Are you always wary of being followed? Have you had racial slurs written on your car, or your house wall, or shit posted through your letterbox more than once, accompanied by laughter & chanting? Are you asked where you're from & told to go back there at least once a week? Are you expected to be available for someone to have sex with you whenever they choose?
But what about Whataboutism:? What about "us"? Its alright banging on about womens rights or gay rights or racism, but what about OUR rights?
D'you know what? I've fucking had enough of the UK. Twenty years ago Sir Graham Smith flagged this up. Nothing has changed. What about that? Racism & misogyny & homophobia & any other vile discriminatory behaviours define this country and to get even the slightest shift is impossible. Slavery continues, its just hidden & different victims are chosen & traded. Hate crimes continue every day while the theatre of war has expanded online & those who don't accept their role simply follow the clickbait.
Hansard, HoC 17 March 2021: "We can do all the things we have talked about, two men arguing over the Dispatch Box. We can bring in more laws and tougher sentences, which I hope she will support. We can support independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers. We can do all that kind of thing, but..."
Delete...Wait For It...
"... we have to address the fundamental issue of the casual everyday sexism and apathy that fail to address the concerns of women. That is the underlying issue."
The fly in this particular ointment is that the speaker of those words is a serial philanderer & someone who has shown scant regard for women. Ever.
* As a journalist in 1996 he claimed the "tottymeter reading" was "higher than at any Labour Party conference in living memory" because "fickle" women were attracted by the "whiff of power".
* when he was serving mayor of London, he wrote: "There are semi-naked women playing beach volleyball in the middle of the Horse Guards Parade immortalised by Canaletto. They are glistening like wet otters and the water is splashing off the brims of the spectators' sou'westers. The whole thing is magnificent and bonkers."
* he wrote that "it was outrageous that married couples should fund "'the single mothers' desire to procreate independently of men” and "the appalling proliferation of single mothers producing a generation of ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children".
* He also wrote addressing "the feebleness of the modern Briton, his reluctance or inability to take control of his woman and be head of a household.”
* He is quoted as saying in the 2010 general election: "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."
Yep, it was the same vile Clown who now resides in Downing St, glistening obedient unmarried otter by his side clutching her illegitimate child while he steals from the poor & swans around in a fancy big car.
Progress. Doesn't it make you feel warm & fuzzy.
A great piece on BBC Newsround:
Delete"cancer scientist Yewande Biala (pronounced Ye-wan-day Bi-al-lah), who rose to fame on a reality TV show, recently spoke out about people mispronouncing her name and why it's important that we all make an effort to pronounce names that are less familiar to us correctly.
She's talked a lot about her experiences with 'microaggressions'. This is when someone says or does something, either intentionally or unintentionally, which communicates negative attitudes towards one or multiple members of particular groups, for example those belonging to an ethnic minority.
An example of a microaggression could be someone mispronouncing another person's name wrong on purpose, or not making an effort to learn a person's name even when they've been corrected...." and at school... "Before roll call, they [teachers] would open the book and I could see by the look on their faces that they wouldn't even try or they just couldn't pronounce my name. When it came to my name, it was a deep breath in and a laugh and 'Oh, I'm not even going to try and pronounce this', or 'This is so difficult'. When they did it was butchered so bad,"
So let me get this right....if an English speaking person pronounces a foreign language incorrectly, in this case a name, or fails to remember the correct pronunciation after first correction, this isnt an issue of not being able to speak or correctly pronounce a foreign language this is a "micro aggression"?
DeleteSo, in my complete willingness to understand, not be accused of aggression or implicit racism, can someone please explain the correct protocol when I'm unable to pronounce a name, or forget the correct pronunciation the second time?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56069358
DeleteWhy do names and how they're pronounced matter?
DeleteWhat is something that belongs to you, but is used more often by others? Your name of course!
We all have one, some of us have several and many people view their name as a big part of their identity.
A name can reveal a lot about where someone is from, their family's culture and heritage, and some people are even named after famous public figures.
Names can hold a great deal of importance, yet people with uncommon names may find that others tend to mispronounce them.
American vice-president Kamala Harris, who is of Jamaican and Indian heritage, has a name that lots of people have struggled to say correctly - including some of the people she works with! She isn't the only person in the public eye to have dealt with this.
Social media influencer and cancer scientist Yewande Biala (pronounced Ye-wan-day Bi-al-lah), who rose to fame on a reality TV show, recently spoke out about people mispronouncing her name and why it's important that we all make an effort to pronounce names that are less familiar to us correctly.
Stood next a colleague who was A PSO manager who could not pronounce a realatively simple name. I dont think at all deliberate he is just not that able. That doesn't make him anything else. There is no default . There is debate to be had but from some acceptance there are many different pressures that other groups suffer outside of our own experience nor indeed intention.
DeleteRead the article, watch the video. Its about "why it's important that we all make an effort to pronounce names that are less familiar to us correctly."
DeleteAs for Protocol? Try this simple explainer - to make an effort, to engage respectfully, not to whine about it or make it all about you & how its never your fault & how unfair it is to have to consider others' needs, all this inconvenience of others' language & others' identity in your country.
and that's a generalised protocol, not a direct jibe at one indivdual.
DeleteI sense there are some very clear deniers and dysfunctional perspectives for those devaluing the report. I think the inspectorates has certainly brought out the defensive it's not me . How could I possibly be ? The challenges and residence is exactly why probation didnt get it 20 years back and won't likely to be any better in another 20 years. While I respect JB has aired all sides it has been an ugly insight to some in their righteous quarter which I don't expect to be as overt.
DeleteCasual racism?
ReplyDelete"Things became rather more interesting when the prime minister was asked about the home secretary’s plan to offload incoming immigrants to Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, Morocco, and Denmark.
Johnson hummed and hawed. It was right to grant an effective amnesty to those who had been in the country for a long period of time because they knew the score, but it was the humane thing to do from now on to kick out anyone who had just arrived here “illegally” by boat. The thing was, these people were being trafficked here under false pretences – they thought they were going to be welcomed, but the reality was they weren’t wanted, and they would never be able to get any work other than on zero hours contracts." John Crace, Guardian.
BBC - Asked on Thursday whether he felt comfortable with sending asylum seekers abroad, Boris Johnson replied: "The objective here is to save life and avert human misery."
Belfast telegraph: "Boris Johnson has defended proposals to send asylum seekers abroad to be processed, insisting that the policy was a “humanitarian one” intended to combat people smugglers."
Its not a new idea. This was from Oct 2020:
https://www.theweek.co.uk/108244/everything-you-need-to-know-offshore-migrant-detention-plans
Or Jan 2017:
https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/offshore-processing-asylum-applications-out-sight-out-mind/
Or a potted history here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/01/british-plans-offshore-asylum-seekers-australian-refugees-criminals-uk
A retrospective entry on this thread as (a) it beggars belief & (b) it clearly belongs here:
ReplyDelete"Matthew Parr, one of five HM Inspectors of Constabulary who oversee UK police forces, is involved in shaping the inquiry into why officers manhandled women at the vigil where hundreds had gathered to call for safer streets and an end to “misogynistic” policing. However, Parr is also currently suing the government for sex and race discrimination after learning a black female colleague was being paid more.
Recently Parr told an employment tribunal that he believed his “race and sex had a clear influence” on the decision to pay him less, which the Home Office denies.
Advertisement
Parr receives a salary of £140,000 a year but claims his pay is too low compared with colleague Wendy Williams, who is paid £185,000."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/21/clapham-vigil-policing-investigator-is-suing-home-office-for-sex-and-race-bias