It's really quite simple. Being a probation officer and a civil servant is completely incompatible. I have no interest in football, but couldn't avoid noticing how the short-lived European Super League plans required dismissal of 'legacy' fans and their interests in favour of attracting 'new' ones was so very similar to that of 'legacy' probation officers and the urgent recruitment of 1,500 new ones.
--oo00oo--
The astute will have noticed a distinct lack of activity on here of late, pretty much reflecting my own degree of growing disinterest in the lost cause that probation has become. The union has had little to say recently; the Labour front bench spokesperson has little knowledge or interest; the independent probation service 'campaign' vanished; CRC individualism has only days left and the MoJ's stifling stranglehold grows stronger by the day. And now the Justice Select Committee has pronounced:-
The Justice Committee publishes a report on its inquiry into the future of probation services in England and Wales. These services have undergone major upheaval in recent years and a new model for delivering the services is due to come into force in June 2021.
As of 2020, nearly 225,000 people were under probation service provision. These services are aimed at protecting the public and reducing reoffending. Some people ‘on probation’ may have already served a prison sentence while others will have been given a non-custodial community sentence, for example being required to undertake punishments such as unpaid community work.
The new model of probation services due to be introduced in June this year is known as the ‘Unified Model’. The Unified Model replaces a policy which was introduced from 2014/15 and was widely seen to have failed.
The old policy split the probation services between the National Probation Service, which dealt with the most serious cases, and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) which dealt with the rest. Following much criticism, the Ministry of Justice decided to end the CRC contracts early and develop a new model.
Chair's comment
The Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill MP said:
“The last few years have been very difficult for the hardworking men and women who look after our probation services. First, they had to cope with a misguided and badly implemented re-organisation. Then Covid struck, making everyone’s job doubly hard. I hope our report will help shape a much better experience. There are lots of recommendations in it but let me draw attention to a simple and important one. No probation officer should have to cope with a caseload of more than 50 clients. If we can stick to that rule of thumb, I think we have a fighting chance of improving the situation.”
Re-unifying the Probation Service
The Justice Committee report welcomed the decision to re-unify the Probation Service. It warned, however, that after the disruption of the past seven years these changes must be fully thought through, properly funded and expected to remain in place for a period of decades rather than years. The Committee sought an assurance on this from the Ministry of Justice.
The Justice Committee report also acknowledged that the transition to the new Unified Model of delivery was a “huge operational challenge” in the context of the pandemic, including changes in management systems, IT technology and buildings leases.
The Chief Inspector of Probation, Justin Russell, pointed out:
“We are talking about 113,000 cases transferring [back] into the National Probation Service and you do not want to lose any of them along the way”.
The Committee urged the Ministry of Justice to publish a detailed timetable setting out milestones towards the Unified Model going live in June and requested monthly updates on progress made against those targets.
Some services will still be contracted out
Although the new Unified Model for delivering probation has re-unified the service, it still has provision for contracting out some services to be provided by private or voluntary organisations. This is called the ‘Dynamic Framework’. It is a commissioning mechanism for providing resettlement services needed after release from prison as well as rehabilitation interventions aimed at reducing reoffending for those on community orders.
Witnesses appearing before the Committee broadly welcomed this initiative although there were some concerns about how it may work in practice, particularly for smaller, third sector or voluntary providers of services who might be unprepared, or not have the resources, to tackle a complex commissioning process.
The Committee also raised concerns about the potential for contracts to be underfunded and recommended that the Ministry of Justice set out how they are modelling these contracts financially, and what is being done to ensure that contracts are sufficiently resourced and deliverable.
Support for those leaving prison
The report notes that successful rehabilitation relies on a successful transition from prison to probation. This includes good communication between soon-to-be released detainees and probation officers, as well as the provision of help in areas such as accommodation, finances, education and employment.
The Justice Committee welcomed the additional Ministry of Justice investment which had resulted in improved services for people leaving prison and said it hoped the service would continue to improve under the new Unified Model coming into operation in June.
However, the Committee asked the Ministry to set out in detail how it intended to manage pre-release services under the new model. There were many practical challenges to address such as security clearances for probation officers visiting prisons and access to areas in prison buildings where meetings could be held.
The workforce needed to do the job
The Select Committee report on the future of probation services notes that low staffing levels have historically been a problem in the sector. The report acknowledges that staff are working through the pandemic and against the backdrop of a second major reform programme in recent years. The Committee thanked and praised probation staff for their hard work and dedication, particularly during the past year.
The Committee found that probation caseloads are still too high, even “unmanageable” in some cases and recommended that the Ministry of Justice commit to ensuring that individual probation officer caseloads do not exceed 50.
The Ministry said 1000 new trainee probation staff would be taken on in 2020/2021. Other witnesses said it would take a long time to train these recruits and added that the government’s plan to recruit 20,000 new police officers was also likely to increase demand for probation services.
The Justice Committee report said it welcomed the government’s commitment to employ 1000 new recruits but said it was not clear whether this was in addition to the 464 vacancies that already existed. It asked the Ministry for clarification on this point.
The Committee also welcomed the government’s commitment to employ more ex-offenders as role models and support staff.
As of 2020, nearly 225,000 people were under probation service provision. These services are aimed at protecting the public and reducing reoffending. Some people ‘on probation’ may have already served a prison sentence while others will have been given a non-custodial community sentence, for example being required to undertake punishments such as unpaid community work.
The new model of probation services due to be introduced in June this year is known as the ‘Unified Model’. The Unified Model replaces a policy which was introduced from 2014/15 and was widely seen to have failed.
The old policy split the probation services between the National Probation Service, which dealt with the most serious cases, and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) which dealt with the rest. Following much criticism, the Ministry of Justice decided to end the CRC contracts early and develop a new model.
Chair's comment
The Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill MP said:
“The last few years have been very difficult for the hardworking men and women who look after our probation services. First, they had to cope with a misguided and badly implemented re-organisation. Then Covid struck, making everyone’s job doubly hard. I hope our report will help shape a much better experience. There are lots of recommendations in it but let me draw attention to a simple and important one. No probation officer should have to cope with a caseload of more than 50 clients. If we can stick to that rule of thumb, I think we have a fighting chance of improving the situation.”
Re-unifying the Probation Service
The Justice Committee report welcomed the decision to re-unify the Probation Service. It warned, however, that after the disruption of the past seven years these changes must be fully thought through, properly funded and expected to remain in place for a period of decades rather than years. The Committee sought an assurance on this from the Ministry of Justice.
The Justice Committee report also acknowledged that the transition to the new Unified Model of delivery was a “huge operational challenge” in the context of the pandemic, including changes in management systems, IT technology and buildings leases.
The Chief Inspector of Probation, Justin Russell, pointed out:
“We are talking about 113,000 cases transferring [back] into the National Probation Service and you do not want to lose any of them along the way”.
The Committee urged the Ministry of Justice to publish a detailed timetable setting out milestones towards the Unified Model going live in June and requested monthly updates on progress made against those targets.
Some services will still be contracted out
Although the new Unified Model for delivering probation has re-unified the service, it still has provision for contracting out some services to be provided by private or voluntary organisations. This is called the ‘Dynamic Framework’. It is a commissioning mechanism for providing resettlement services needed after release from prison as well as rehabilitation interventions aimed at reducing reoffending for those on community orders.
Witnesses appearing before the Committee broadly welcomed this initiative although there were some concerns about how it may work in practice, particularly for smaller, third sector or voluntary providers of services who might be unprepared, or not have the resources, to tackle a complex commissioning process.
The Committee also raised concerns about the potential for contracts to be underfunded and recommended that the Ministry of Justice set out how they are modelling these contracts financially, and what is being done to ensure that contracts are sufficiently resourced and deliverable.
Support for those leaving prison
The report notes that successful rehabilitation relies on a successful transition from prison to probation. This includes good communication between soon-to-be released detainees and probation officers, as well as the provision of help in areas such as accommodation, finances, education and employment.
The Justice Committee welcomed the additional Ministry of Justice investment which had resulted in improved services for people leaving prison and said it hoped the service would continue to improve under the new Unified Model coming into operation in June.
However, the Committee asked the Ministry to set out in detail how it intended to manage pre-release services under the new model. There were many practical challenges to address such as security clearances for probation officers visiting prisons and access to areas in prison buildings where meetings could be held.
The workforce needed to do the job
The Select Committee report on the future of probation services notes that low staffing levels have historically been a problem in the sector. The report acknowledges that staff are working through the pandemic and against the backdrop of a second major reform programme in recent years. The Committee thanked and praised probation staff for their hard work and dedication, particularly during the past year.
The Committee found that probation caseloads are still too high, even “unmanageable” in some cases and recommended that the Ministry of Justice commit to ensuring that individual probation officer caseloads do not exceed 50.
The Ministry said 1000 new trainee probation staff would be taken on in 2020/2021. Other witnesses said it would take a long time to train these recruits and added that the government’s plan to recruit 20,000 new police officers was also likely to increase demand for probation services.
The Justice Committee report said it welcomed the government’s commitment to employ 1000 new recruits but said it was not clear whether this was in addition to the 464 vacancies that already existed. It asked the Ministry for clarification on this point.
The Committee also welcomed the government’s commitment to employ more ex-offenders as role models and support staff.
--oo00oo--
Conclusions and recommendations
Transforming Rehabilitation and the Probation Reform Programme
1. A previous Justice Committee said in 2018 that the Transforming Rehabilitation looked unlikely ever to work. Time has proved our predecessors right. We welcome the Government’s decision to reunify the Probation Service and to introduce a new probation reform programme, even if we must acknowledge how unsatisfactory it is that those working in the system must face more organisational change after six years of it and a 12-month period of coping with a pandemic. We thank the CRC providers for their work over the past six years, and recognise the positive work that has been done and the innovation CRCs have brought to the probation service during this time. (Paragraph 26)
2. This is the second major probation reform programme in the last five years. The unplanned-for effect of covid-19 has only added to the challenges the Probation Service faces. The lessons of the previous, failed reforms must be learned, and the new model must provide a lasting solution that allows some stability to a vital and hard-pressed service. (Paragraph 31)
3. As the then Minister of State, Lucy Frazer, acknowledged to us, one reason for the failure of the 2014–15 Transforming Rehabilitation reforms was inaccurate modelling of how much work, and therefore profit, would go to the private sector and third sector organisations allocated more than half the probation system’s overall caseload to administer. The PAC, the NAO and other bodies, including a former Justice Committee, have highlighted how the 2014–15 reforms foundered on being introduced too fast and without sufficient planning or research into their impacts. (Paragraph 32)
4. We welcome the decision to unify the Probation Service once more. We warn, however, that, after the disruption of the past seven years, changes proposed and begun to the probation system must be fully thought through, properly funded and expected to remain in place for a period of decades rather than months or a few years. We seek an assurance from the Ministry of Justice that the new reforms will do so. (Paragraph 33)
5. There is cause for concern in the way that some goalposts have shifted as the new model has been developed. In particular, the decision to seek Probation Delivery Partners while the new model of delivery was still being developed had unfortunate consequences. Its subsequent cancellation caused significant disappointment to those private and third sector organisations whom the Ministry of Justice encouraged to put time and effort into making successful bids only to see the idea scrapped shortly afterwards. (Paragraph 34)
6. The Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland QC MP, highlighted the role of covid-19 in requiring his decision to cancel the Probation Delivery Partner programme, but we must be concerned at any possible echo of a repeat of over-rapid, under-researched reform being introduced, at great cost and inconvenience, and then swiftly reversed when difficulties arise. We recommend that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice make it clear whether his cancellation of the Probation Delivery Partner programme was a pragmatic decision as a result of the additional pressures raised by the covid-19 outbreak or a decision on principle to bring unpaid work and behavioural change programmes back within a unified national probation service for the long term. In particular, we invite him to confirm whether the Ministry plans to reconsider or revive a Probation Delivery Partner programme once the covid-19 pandemic has been contained. (Paragraph 35)
7. We recommend that the Ministry review its decision to seek partners while the new model was still being developed and to report to us on whether future procurement processes will prevent the cancellation of proposed new contacts at such a late stage in a process and after potential bidders have put considerable time and effort into nugatory bids. (Paragraph 36)
The Unified Model, Sentence Management and Advice to the Courts
8. The new unified model has the potential to increase judicial confidence, through improved communication, sharing of relevant information and a more consistent offer of support. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice sets out how it will assess whether the new probation delivery model improves sentencer confidence, what criteria will be used to make that judgment, and what research will be undertaken, and data gathered. (Paragraph 44)
9. Confidence in non-custodial sentencing among judges and magistrates - and, by implication, the public - will rise only if the suitability and effectiveness of such sanctions are improved. More needs to be done to address the range of issues that cause offending and, in particular in this context, reoffending after both custodial and non-custodial sentences. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill currently progressing through Parliament offers a substantial opportunity to increase public confidence that those who offend are serving suitable sentences, in prison and afterwards or as community alternatives. We look forward to considering firm legislative proposals on sentencing, release, parole, probation, youth justice and the management of offenders as the Bill proceeds. (Paragraph 45)
10. We recommend that the MOJ sets out what other action is being taken to improve judicial and public confidence in sentencing, particularly for the delivery of community sentencing. We recommend that the MOJ sets out what criteria it uses to measure the effectiveness of community sentencing, including the effect on reoffending. (Paragraph 46)
11. Pre-sentence reports are an essential part of probation delivery and ensure that sentencers have the information necessary to make sentencing decisions that will ensure justice and support rehabilitation. We welcome the MOJ’s commitment to improving pre-sentence reports and increasing their use under the new model and are pleased to hear that NPS capacity to prepare pre-sentence reports will be increased. (Paragraph 55)
12. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice set out how they intend to increase NPS capacity to prepare pre-sentence reports. The MOJ should also set out what work is being done besides this to improve the quality of pre-sentence reports, ensuring that those completing them understand and convey to sentencers what the needs of the offender are, and what is available in the local community where a community sentence may be appropriate. (Paragraph 56)
The Dynamic Framework
13. We are pleased to hear that Ministry of Justice have taken steps to make the Dynamic Framework more accessible to smaller third sector organisations, and particularly welcome the consultancy support that the Ministry of Justice have funded or made available free of charge to some smaller organisations. There is concern, however, among smaller and third sector organisations that the ambition to include their expertise in the system may be defeated by complex processes that may favour larger bidders. We support the work the Ministry of Justice is doing to address those concerns. We welcome the analysis the Department is undertaking on who is bidding under the Dynamic Framework and the issues arising from the bidding process, and we recommend that the Ministry of justice publish this analysis, alongside a plan of what measures will be taken to address any issues identified. (Paragraph 74)
14. We welcome the work the Ministry is doing to feed into the Cabinet Office review of procurement and recommend that the MOJ update the Committee on the outcome of this review. (Paragraph 75)
15. Although we recognise that contract values and volumes are indicative, we share in the concerns expressed by some of our witnesses, that in some instances projected volumes are lower than those that various organisations are currently working with. Given that contract value is based on projected volume, discrepancies in these figures, may prevent organisations from participating in the Dynamic Framework. For those that do participate, underfunded contracts may cause financial and operational issues later down the line which could affect the quality of service provision. The potential for contracts to be underfunded is of significant concern to the Committee and we recommend that The Ministry of Justice set out how they are modelling projected volumes and contract values, and also what is being done to ensure that contracts are sufficiently resourced and deliverable according to the funding that is available. (Paragraph 81)
16. No system can function fully from Day 1, but it is vital that probation service provision be as effective as possible. We acknowledge the fears of organisations such as NACRO about implementation of the Dynamic Framework, but equally note the confidence of the then Minister of Justice that services will be appropriately provided from the first day. We note the disappointment of those who may be affected by a shift from local to regional provision but appreciate why that was necessary at a time of pandemic. It is to be hoped that the ambition of including more third sector and smaller organisations with valuable specialist skills will be fully achieved in the longer term. Even given the difficulties that have arisen in its delivery, the Dynamic Framework appears overall to offer a more localised approach to service provision than was previously available. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice publish a commitment to ensure that procurement beyond Day 1 will take place at a more local than regional level wherever appropriate and where suitable services exist, to ensure that the services procured meet specific local needs. We also recommend that the Ministry of Justice also keep and publish records of procurement at regional/local levels and the volume of work awarded to smaller providers. (Paragraph 86)
17. So far as Day 1 provision itself goes, we have heard convincing evidence that some services may not be available straight away and are not clear what will be provided for those people who would use them. We invite the Ministry of Justice to set out what initial provision will be offered on Day 1 to those who need financial, benefits and debt services no longer available, a need that may be exacerbated by the conditions created by the covid pandemic. We recognise that suitable services will be made available at a later date, but we seek clear information on when that will be. We recommend that the Ministry set out a post-Day 1 procurement timeline for services not in scope for Day 1. (Paragraph 87)
Through the Gate and the new Resettlement model
18. We welcome the additional investment the Ministry of Justice has made to improve Through the Gate service provision until existing contracts end. We are pleased that this additional investment has resulted in an improved service for those in need of resettlement support and we hope that the service continues to improve under the new model of probation. We particularly welcome the Ministry’s intention to improve the integration between prison and community. All this being said, we have heard from several witnesses that the new resettlement model lacks clarity, with some uncertainty about how the model will be delivered in practice. (Paragraph 101)
19. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice set out how they intend the new model to be delivered practically on a local level, and how the model will work alongside those services commissioned through the Dynamic Framework. The Ministry should detail how they will ensure the “in-reach” (pre-release contact between the probation offender manager and prisoner) aspect of the new model works in practice, considering challenges often faced in regard to security clearance, access to space and the operational capacity for prisons to deliver. (Paragraph 102)
20. We note that the new resettlement model is being developed alongside the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) Model. While we welcome both models, our inquiry has highlighted some concern that the OMiC model has not yet been fully rolled out across the prison estate, which could affect implementation and success of the resettlement model. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice set out the status of roll-out of the OMiC model, including how many prisons are implementing the model fully, partially and not at all. Should the model not yet be fully implemented, we invite the Ministry to provide a timetable for its full roll-out. (Paragraph 103)
Workforce
21. Probation Officers are fundamental to the delivery of probation, and we recognise the important role they play in supporting offenders and protecting the public. The Probation Service has historically faced difficulties with staffing levels, which has resulted in Probation Officers having very high caseloads, affecting their ability to manage risk and support offenders to rehabilitate. The Committee welcome the commitment to an additional 1,000 probation officers, but remain unclear whether this is additional to the existing vacancies. We recommend that the MoJ confirm whether the pledged 1,000 additional probation officers will be in addition to the 464 existing vacancies. (Paragraph 126)
22. We recognise that newly qualified probation officers and those still in training need training, development and support, and should have smaller caseloads, but we are concerned that in the interim, caseloads for qualified probation officers will remain high. While we appreciate that many variables make setting a target caseload difficult, it is clear from Inspectorate research that caseloads of more than 50 affect the quality of work, and thus the ability of probation to meet the aims of rehabilitation and public protection. We recommend that the MoJ commit to ensuring that individual caseloads do not exceed a baseline figure of 50. We recognise caseload numbers may fluctuate below this number, but they should not exceed it. The Ministry should also set out what work is being done to reduce caseloads, beyond the recruitment of additional probation officers and what support is available to staff with high caseloads, to ensure they are able to manage risk for all offenders in their caseload adequately. (Paragraph 127)
23. We are pleased to note the Ministry’s commitment to employing more ex-offenders and welcome HMPPS’ commitment to employing 150 ex-offenders in probation. We recommend that the MOJ and HMPPS set out a detailed timeline for how it will recruit and deploy these ex-offenders. (Paragraph 128)
Transition
24. Transition to the new model in the context of covid-19 presents a huge operational challenge, particularly for operating models, IT systems and building leases. The Ministry and HMPPS have assured us that work is under way to ensure transition is successfully and completed on schedule. We recommend that the Ministry publish a detailed timetable setting out milestones towards transition, and we seek a monthly update on the progress made against those targets. (Paragraph 142)
25. We are concerned to hear that some voluntary sector organisations do not feel sufficiently involved in the process to successfully manage transition. (Paragraph 143)
26. We recommend that the MOJ and HMPPS involve voluntary organisations and CRCs in relevant communications relating to transition. We recommend that the MOJ clarify to relevant voluntary sector supply chain partners their position in relation to TUPE, including what staff members are eligible and what contract they fall into. (Paragraph 144)
--oo00oo--
Napo press release:-
The Future of Probation: Napo’s response to the Justice Select Committee report.
Napo has campaigned tirelessly over the last seven years to reunify probation following the disastrous privatisation of probation under the then Secretary of State Chris Grayling. We welcome the interest and scrutiny that the Justice Select Committee has given probation over the years and we welcome this report of their findings.
Whilst the report includes a number of key recommendations, the committee has chosen to focus on staff workloads and the number of cases that staff carry at any given time. However, Napo would urge caution on this. Probation cases vary in terms of complexity, needs, and risk management and in order for staff to do their job they need the room to focus on those complex cases. The ongoing issue of workloads in probation requires a far more holistic approach including providing the service with the resources it needs to employ the adequate number of staff, the pay and recognition staff deserve and flexibility to address workload and stress issues. An arbitrary number will become the bench mark and this may ultimately do more harm than good.
The Dynamic framework, the part of probation still being contracted out, has been badly affected by the pandemic in terms of delays to the timetable for bidding and awarding contracts. As such we are now under immense pressure to complete the process of transfer in a very short space of time. Those staff members transferring to these new providers under TUPE must be consulted with and provided with assurances, which are currently not forthcoming. It remains to be seen whether these new contracts will provide the promised involvement of specialist voluntary and third sector providers and there remain concerns that some of the mistakes of the past will be repeated.
Over all however, the report is welcome. Napo would like to thank the committee for its time but also to ask that it keeps probation under scrutiny going forward. We have a long way to go to effectively rebuild the profession, the service and staff morale. This will require further investment, a commitment by the Ministry of Justice to listen to the experts and follow the evidence.
Ian Lawrence, Napo General Secretary said: “The last seven years has taught us that you cannot have an effective probation service built on ad hoc, ideologically run policies. Probation is a critical part of the criminal justice system, of rehabilitating clients and protecting the public. It cannot do this effectively if it is starved of resources and under constant change. The Minister must now commit to providing the probation [service] with adequate funding so that it can now begin to stabilise and return to being the most effective public service justice system.”
--oo00oo--
It’s goes without saying that probation should have never been spilt up in the first place. The first order of probation reunification should be;
ReplyDelete1. Separate the probation service from the prison service, and remove the probation service from the cloak of the Civil Service. These two organisations are not compatible with the values and practices of probation.
Imagine if the Police, the Courts and the CPS were joined together, called HMPCCPSS, and forced under the banner of the Civil Service where numptys in grey suits determined how individuals were arrested, charged and sentenced.
DeleteSounds like a chapter from 1984.
The courts already are part of the civil service - HMCTS.
DeleteNo problem then. Let’s just add on Police and CPS, put Chris Grayling in charge and call it Transforming Justice.
DeleteI really don't understand why nearly a quarter of a million people need to be subject to probation supervision.
ReplyDeleteIt's just feeding a machine for the sake of it.
'Getafix
Just thinking out loud with high caseloads and the vast number of people subject to probation services in mind.
DeleteThe TR rethoric was about extending all the services probation had to offer to everyone leaving custody, and to enable that all those leaving custody would be placed on a minimum of 12mth probation supervision. It instantly saw 40,000 people serving less then 12mths being funneled onto post custody supervision which in reality provided little benefit to anyone, and actually just accelerated for many a return to custody through recall.
But now with the Dynamic Framework, many of those services that the TR rethoric extolled are actually not being provided by probation, but by a number of private and third sector external agencies. So why, particularly with regard to the 12mth and under cohort, do they have to be subjected to a years supervision to get signposted or referred to those agencies? Why can't they just be signposted and referred by the prison service prior to leaving custody?
Making almost everyone who comes into contact with the CJS subject to probation supervision of some kind is to my mind unnecessary and a nonsense. It drastically drains resources, hugely inflates caseloads, and to what purpose? To signpost and refer them to somewhere else?
Surely if the services that can be accessed through the Dynamic Framework are external to probation, they there's no need to be subjected to probation supervision to access them? Or perhaps probation is now also being used as a 'point of sale', a warehousing facility, a vendor, or market place where those external agencies can select their 'stock' from to obtain their best or favoured 'outcomes'?
Isn't it sometimes far better to cut the middleman out?
'Getafix
Power.
DeleteControl.
Exploitation.
Personal Profit.
Criminal 'bosses', drug 'lords', human traffiking & sexual exploitation, Ponzi schemes - they all use the same strategy.
Take & hold the power.
Assert control.
Exploit the market.
Reap the rewards.
The 'middleman' is a cost-effective, disposable tool - bagman, stooge, scapegoat, distraction, fall-guy. SFO anyone? Just read Alison Moss's book.
"control the criminal class & you can control the working class, thus you can control wider public opinion"
It works. Look how popular this vile excuse-for-a-government remains despite all that's happened in the last decade. The UK electorate are lapping up the media support & praise for them.
Good to see a new blog piece, and yet another one that highlights the impotence & fence-sitting of parliamentary committees.
ReplyDeleteIf Bob Neill & co had any real powers in their oversight & scrutineering role the shameful and costly TR debacle would never have happened. Through a combination of no authority & no real inclination to criticise they have allowed this shitstorm to develop & wreak havoc.
Napo sail in the same boat - no authority & no desire to rock that boat, just a few feeble requests for "renationalisation" & then silence.
"Renationalise failing privatised probation services, say unions"
"Unions call on government to renationalise probation services"
I note they have now re-branded 'renationalisation' as 'reunification', which is a more honest & accurate description.
Many media reports have gone uncorrected with such guff as:
"Supervision of all offenders on licence and serving community sentences in England and Wales will be entirely under public control from next year, it was announced today."
It has ALWAYS been under public control. It never stopped being under public control. MoJ/HMPPS kept a hold on the reins throughout TR. The CRCs were merely leaseholders; the MoJ/HMPPS held the freehold. All risk issues were devolved to NPS.
"CHRIS GRAYLING’S “obsession” with privatisation has “all but destroyed the probation service,” the head of the offender rehabilitation union has said" - seems Ian Lawrence has redefined his job description.
1. The biggest achievement of Grayling's TR *was* that the Probation Service was fragmented, devalued, disassociated & deprofessionalised by the very process of TR - the divide-&-rule, the bullying & cronyism, handing shitloads of public cash to shady privateers - cash which was invested in overseas pockets rather than in delivery of probation services.
2. It wasn't about Grayling's obsession with privatisation. That was a red herring.
It was about Grayling's willingness to execute the long-held wishes of those in the deep, dark corners of the Tory party, i.e. get rid of those lefty do-gooders because social work values lead to individuals' empowerment & fulfilment of social need.
But control the criminal class & you can control the working class, thus you can control wider public opinion by tightening the squeeze - more prisons, longer sentences, no early release, public flogging, hanging, etc.
And hey! presto! Probation service provision is now wholly in the grubby blood-stained hands of the government
And the 'offender rehabilitation union' is cheering them on!!!
Huzzah for reunification!!
p.s. I thought it was quiet because you'd maybe fallen off your stairlift? :)
"PS I thought it was quiet because you'd maybe fallen off your stairlift? :)"
DeleteNo, just lost heart and busy on other more exciting stuff. Thanks for your concern though - there are contingency plans should I become a casualty of said stairlift. :)
"But control the criminal class & you can control the working class, thus you can control wider public opinion by tightening the squeeze - more prisons, longer sentences, no early release, public flogging, hanging, etc."
Delete"The British working class are useless, drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless...with their ill-raised, ignorant, arrogant and illegitimate children" - Boris Johnson. 'The Spectator' 1995
Its all perfectly normal.
No more than 50 where are they getting that from. It was 40 pre split although a psr as well but less parole work. More quality directives, more forms, more assessments, all cases now filtered so all are active, more complexity. 50 is a joke. They have no idea especially with the complexity of cases and parole demands. This organisation sickens me more and more each day. They have drained staff, thrown them under the bus as scapegoats, taken away any benefits we had, replaced learning with shitty e learning to tick a box, kept us chained to stupid little laptops instead of allowed us to spend time with offenders. Just had enough of this complete disgraceful mess they have forced on us.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/25/the-uks-femicide-epidemic-whos-killing-our-daughters
ReplyDeletePlease remember that after Priti Patel had indicated the government was likely to support the measures ALL but two Conservative MPs VOTED AGAINST the amendment to add persistent stalkers and domestic abusers to a national register. It was defeated 351 to 227.
MPs also voted down House of Lords-supported amendments that would have given family court judges training on sexual abuse and provided greater protection to migrant victims of domestic violence.
Presumably there's no profit in it, unlike football.
In the meantime, covid seems to be a distant memory here in the UK. Shops are open & full, beer gardens are open & full, buses & trains are packed, Easter saw large scale circulation of people holidaying around the country, masks are being forgotten. No-one seems to be right bothered about the statistics anymore:
ReplyDelete* the UK is still losing over 400 loved ones each week
* the UK is still accumulating 2,000+ new cases daily
* the UK has a covid death toll well beyond the government's published 'within 28-days' figure of 150,000
Seems like Boris has wallpapered over the cracks - but he says he paid for it himself, as does his favourite cheesemonger Liz Truss.
Elsewhere on the planet:
India's daily case numbers began rising at the end of February after falling steadily from mid-September 2020.
They picked up sharply in March, the time when India's political parties have been campaigning for a series of state elections in West Bengal, Assam, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
The ruling BJP has said there is no link. "High cases have nothing to do with religious or political gatherings," Dr Vijay Chauthaiwale, of the BJP, told the BBC.
The country has so far confirmed more than 186,000 deaths and 16 million cases - three million have been added just in the last two weeks.
Best friend to Boris, Narendra Modi, avoided wearing a mask at a campaign rally on Saturday, saying “I’ve never seen such huge crowds” at an event in West Bengal. That night he said “India had defeated Covid last year and India can do it again”. Perhaps he was shaking hands too?
In Brazil where Bolsonaro, another hand-shaking covid minimiser/ denier, is in power:
"Hospitals across Brazil reported being inundated with Covid patients, many disturbingly young, and Brazil’s death toll nearly doubled, from just over 195,000 at the start of January to 380,000 now. By March the P1 variant had been detected in eight South American countries.
More worryingly...
“It’s not just a much more contagious variant but it also increases the levels of reinfection, which reduces the efficacy of vaccines,” said Antonio Quispe, a Peruvian epidemiologist."
Doctors in India are also reporting increasing numbers of infections in people who have been doubly-vaccinated, which raises concern about the ongoing risks associated with the Indian variant of the virus.
I fear the UK is sleepwalking into the next wave.
People are saying "ah, but it won't be so bad; its summer."
Unlike the arctic winter conditions in Brazil & India?
I agree we probably are just waiting for the sucker punch from a resistant variant from somewhere around the globe, but there were 192 UK deaths in the last week. Your point is sufficiently well-made without resort to dramatic licence.
DeleteOf the 315 local areas in England, 149 (47%) have seen a rise in rates, 150 (48%) have seen a fall and 16 are unchanged.
DeleteThe figures, for the seven days to April 22, are based on the number of people who have tested positive for Covid-19 in either a lab-reported or rapid lateral flow test, by specimen date.
The rate is expressed as the number of new cases per 100,000 people.
Data for the most recent four days (April 23-26) has been excluded as it is incomplete and does not reflect the true number of cases.
Selby, in North Yorkshire, has the highest rate, with 101 new cases in the seven days to April 22 – the equivalent of 111.5 cases per 100,000 people.
This is up from 48.6 in the seven days to April 15, the largest increase in the country.
Here is the list in full:
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/latest-weekly-covid-19-rates
When Boris leaves No 10 (which might be sooner than he anticipates) will he take the light fittings and the wallpaper with him?
ReplyDeleteBreaking News
ReplyDelete"Almost four out of 10 voters think Boris Johnson and the Conservative party are corrupt, according the latest Opinium poll for the Observer."
More to the point: how & why the fuck do six out of ten voters think the Tories are ***not*** corrupt?
That leaves Ken Starmer 20% out of pocket in electoral terms at a time when a series of rampant tory governments have been taking the piss & filling their boots for the last ten years... & counting.
Its not looking good for Ken.
And for us, the little people? We had better prepare ourselves for another decade of apocalyptic greed, selfishness & the politics of egomania.
Probation staff had also better buckle up - it aint going to get any better as you'll be the pawns used to police, monitor & control the criminal classes.
That unification you all voted for, the faux re-nationalisation, is going to take such a tight grip you'll be begging for mercy before 2022 comes around. Romeo's got an empire to build; Farrar's got a taste for power; while Crozier/Flynn & NPS 'top table' have already demonstrated their appetite for ruthless, cold-blooded execution of orders to protect the organisation:
"[the document] was a record of a telephone conversation between the national head of NPS, human resources and the government legal department... It clearly indicated that the Probation Service was being advised its legal team to cover their backs to avoid corporate litigation... "Our view is we don't want her practising." (from Alison Moss' book 'The Leroy Campbell Case').
Take the pledge, salute the flag, follow the rules.
There is no longer an independent probation service provision in England & Wales. You are now agents of Her Majesty's Government.
I think I'd like to be part of this
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/25/deep-time-team-ends-40-days-underground-in-french-cave
Fifteen people have emerged from a cave in south-west France after 40 days underground in an experiment to see how the absence of clocks, daylight and external communications would affect their sense of time.
With big smiles on their pale faces, they left their voluntary isolation in the Lombrives cave to a round of applause and basked in the light while wearing special glasses to protect their eyes after so long in the dark.
The team members followed their biological clocks to know when to wake up, go to sleep and eat. They counted their days not in hours but in sleep cycles.
With no daily obligations and no children around, the challenge was “to profit from the present moment without ever thinking about what will happen in one hour, in two hours”
Oh FFS I wondered where Napo had got to.
DeleteRemember the post office staff who were cleared last week? Here's the ex-boss of the post office pre-empting the likely outcome of an inquiry while still refusing to admit responsibility:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56882496
A sudden rush of conscience? Or a cynical attempt to hang on to her ill-gotten gains & gongs?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/26/ex-post-office-head-apologises-to-workers-after-convictions-quashed
The scandal has thrown a new light on to Vennell’s seven-year tenure as chief executive of the Post Office, which had previously been viewed as a success after she transformed a company making annual losses of £120m into a profit-making business.
When she left the role in 2019, she had made £5m and been awarded a CBE for “services to the Post Office and to charity”.
She added that she would be stepping back from her duties as a minister at the Church of St Owen near Bedford, in the diocese of St Albans, calling the scandal a “distraction”. She has also quit roles with the NHS and Cabinet Office.
Enough to churn the stomach.
"Review of children’s social care in England ignores role of poverty, says expert"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/26/review-childrens-social-care-england-ignores-role-poverty-says-expert
Because this govt simply cannot 'afford' to acknowledge that poverty exists; the poverty they imposed upon vast swathes of the UK through their deceitful "austerity" project.
Control the narrative - racism doesn't exist; poverty doesn't exist; abuse against women doesn't exist; inequality doesn't exist.
I can't wait for the moment when Dirty Shagger & the rest of the lickspittle cronies finally come up against the hard cold wall of reality. Because they will be held firmly against that wall in the not too distant future.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/952624/terms_of_reference_independent_childrens_social_care_review.pdf
Looks like the Dirty Shagger might have a pile on his mind at the moment.
DeleteHowever vile Cummings might be, poking him with a sharp stick was not a good idea. It seems Cummings is implying he has an audio tape of Shagger shouting "no more fucking lockdowns – let the bodies pile high".
Bring it on... maybe he'll get £250 on YBF?
Hurrah! New wallpaper all round!
ReplyDelete"April 26 (Reuters) - Britain’s fraud watchdog’s bid for a criminal trial of two former Serco executives over prisoner-tagging contracts collapsed on Monday when a court threw out the case on procedural grounds.
A judge refused the Serious Fraud Office’s request to adjourn the case and directed the jury to return verdicts of not guilty against the defendants over an SFO failure to disclose certain documents to the defence, the SFO said in a statement.
“This follows a prosecution review of its disclosure process for the trial, which uncovered errors made in the non-disclosure of certain materials,” the SFO statement said. “The SFO sought an adjournment to remedy the position so that it could pursue a retrial, but this was rejected by the judge.
“We are considering how best to undertake an assessment to prevent this from happening in the future,” it added.
A long-running investigation by the watchdog into how Serco, one of Britain’s biggest outsourcers, billed the government over electronic tags for prisoners turned a corner in 2019 when Serco and the SFO agreed to settle the case for $24 million."
FT version
DeleteThe Serious Fraud Office’s case against two former Serco executives collapsed in dramatic fashion on Monday after it emerged the agency had made mistakes when disclosing documents which jeopardised the trial.
On Monday, Judge Amanda Tipples refused the agency’s application to adjourn the case and directed the jury to return not guilty verdicts against Nicholas Woods and Simon Marshall, bringing a humiliating end to the SFO’s seven-and-a-half year investigation into prisoner tagging contracts.
Woods and Marshall, former finance director of Serco home affairs and operations director of field services respectively, were accused of defrauding the government out of £12m by understating the true profitability of the company’s prisoner tagging contract.
On Monday, it emerged that the SFO had failed to disclose certain documents to the defence, resulting in issues which, according to Tipples “undermine the process of disclosure to the extent that the trial cannot safely and fairly proceed until they have been remedied”.
The SFO asked to adjourn the trial — which began in March and concerns allegations dating back to 2011 — in order to resolve those issues. However, Tipples said it was not in the public interest to do so.
The disclosure issues meant the SFO could not offer any evidence against the defendants in a case that was set for as long as 12 weeks but abandoned just a third of the way through. Some 1.3m documents had been produced for the trial.
In a statement the SFO said: “We are considering how best to undertake an assessment to prevent this from happening in the future.”
“Nicholas Woods was accused by the SFO of devising a serious fraud by which false charges were created to reduce Serco’s profit margin on government contracts,” he said. “However, the evidence in this case clearly showed these charges were, in fact, company policy. Mr Woods was directed by senior management to implement them, and trusted his bosses believing the practice to be completely legitimate.”
The collapse of the case is a stinging defeat for the SFO, which also attracted criticism from the judge for the way it constructed the case.
“It seems to me there are . . . real concerns in relation to the nature of the prosecution case against these defendants,” Tipples said on Monday.
Neil Swift, a partner at Peters & Peters representing Marshall, said of his client that it “was deeply shocking that he’s been dragged through this for eight years of his life, only for the SFO’s case to collapse in such ignominy”.
The case is the latest in which the agency has settled allegations of wrongdoing with a company but failed to secure convictions in prosecutions it pursued against connected individuals. The SFO secured a £19.2m fine against Serco in 2019 and £3.7m in costs after the outsourcer took responsibility for fraud in relation to prisoner tagging contracts.
The agency has signed nine plea deals with various companies including Tesco but not convicted any individuals in relation to the agreements.
Susan Hawley, executive director at anti-corruption group Spotlight on Corruption said: “The UK has yet to successfully prosecute any individuals where a deferred prosecution agreement has been agreed with a company. We need an urgent review of why this is.”
Serco declined to comment.
HMPPS data released on Post Office Workers Day, 23/4/21
ReplyDeletein prison - 77,738
on curfew - 2,246
This time last year
in prison - 81,124
on curfew - 2,699
There doesn't appear to be anywhere documenting the total number of deaths attributable to covid-19 in prisons thus far...
Who'd have guessed it would be tory MPs?
ReplyDelete"Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, threatened to suspend proceedings in the Commons as two MPs were not wearing face masks. In his initial warning to MPs to wear their masks, Sir Lindsay told the Commons during the urgent question: "It's not my decision, it's the decision of Public Health England. If you don't wish to, please leave the chamber."
He added: "I think we're going to have to suspend the sitting if members are not going to wear them."
The two MPs - Steve Brine and Pauline Latham - did put their masks on following the ***second*** request."
It took TWO requests, so not just a hard-of-hearing issue then. Deselect the selfish fuckers, take away their publicly funded salaries & get shot of them.
Steve Brine - MP for Winchester and Chandler's Ford
Pauline Latham - MP for Mid Derbyshire (she's even got an OBE - for services to what/who/when/why?)
On BBC Radio Sounds
ReplyDelete"Released On: 23 Apr 2021
Available for over a year
Former 'prison wife' Josie Bevan confronts the failings of the prison system.
Josie meets her husband Rob at the prison gates, after he's served four-and-a-half years of a nine year sentence for fraud. She takes stock of where the experience of his incarceration has left her and the family, and the dramatic ways it has impacted her understanding of how the criminal justice system in the UK works - or doesn't work.
Josie introduces Rob to Carl Cattermole, who wrote Prison: A Survival Guide following his own term in Wormwood Scrubs. She talks with former prison governor Peter Dawson, who is now director of the Prison Reform Trust, about how honest public discourse is about prison and she meets Dave Merritt, whose son Jack was working with former prisoners when he was killed in a terror attack at Fishmongers' Hall, London in November 2019.
Josie's previous podcast series Prison Bag - one family's unflinching confrontation with the prison system - is available on BBC Sounds.
Produced by Rebecca Lloyd-Evans and Alan Hall"
Important Nick Wallis blog here that covers the Post Office Horizon Scandal
ReplyDeletehttps://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/vennells-career-ends-in-ignomy.html
From Rob Allen tweet (that JB will have no doubt already seen):
ReplyDelete"A mental health review of an 18 yr old deaf boy in crisis took place through a locked door."
What!!!???
Painfully we shift probation to the right. It used to be full of left thinking social values. The managerialist culture of record account dictate has sadly won out . You will see less social media from staff less views and zero political views it's all over kids.
ReplyDeleteNo increase in our pay point to be paid this month by the looks of things on SOP.
ReplyDeleteThe tory shitstorm continues to blow through the corridors of power:
ReplyDelete"The Domestic Abuse Bill will become law after peers withdrew demands for stalkers to be put on a register of sexual and violent offenders.
Ministers argued the move would not be effective and instead promised to strengthen the current system."
Seems if you bully people enough, & if your coercive behaviour is effective enough, you get your own way.
Sound familiar???
The sewers are open - but who will acknowledge the stench?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/27/calls-for-ministers-to-come-clean-over-links-to-cross-channel-power-cable-sponsor
Can't smell a thing? Did you leave that peg on your nose? Or might it just be covid symptoms?
ReplyDelete"Ministers have been accused of misleading and insulting victims after a push by a cross-party group of peers to create an automatic register of dangerous domestic abusers and stalkers was dropped.
The domestic abuse bill is expected to receive royal assent this week, four years after it was announced in the Queen’s speech. But it will not include a specific stalkers’ register, despite briefings from the government after the death of Sarah Everard that they were likely to support such a measure.
Instead, after sustained pressure from cross-party MPs and peers, the government promised to improve statutory guidance around the current system for monitoring high-risk criminals to better include serial stalkers and domestic abusers."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/27/dropping-of-stalkers-register-from-bill-an-insult-to-victims
As regular readers are aware, comment moderation has been in place for some time and it looks likely to be permanent I'm afraid. It destroys much of an opportunity for discussion, but the paucity of probation-related comment as opposed to anti-Johnson and government stuff means I'm deleting much of it.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem calling out lying bastards wherever they may be in political life, or indeed examples of home grown cronyism, corruption, right wing political crap etc, etc, but I'm not letting it take over the blog at the expense of the core purpose - keeping the probation ideal alive.
I've completely given up with the union, politicians, journalists and now academics. The ever-smaller band of 'legacy' probation officers are inevitably moving on either literally or figuratively as the bright new recruits seemingly can't wait to embrace the MoJ/HMPPS command and control ethos and even if they are unhappy, are too shit-scared to say anything publicly, even anonymously.
Yes I'm angry and yes I'm fed up - but I've also got better things to spend my time on and therefore this platform will continue to wind down. However, I will reserve the option to kick it back into life from suspended animation at any time and when I feel there is something useful to say and in furtherance of the probation ethos so clearly disappearing from sight.