This was the direct question posed by Gwen Robinson, Professor of Criminal Justice, University of Sheffield and the academic invited to give the 24th Bill McWilliams Memorial Lecture to an invited audience at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology yesterday.
I joined the presentation remotely and the sound wasn't very good, but I did catch the following assertions "the Service is a post-traumatic organisation" and there is "systemic workplace harm". Blimey, just let that sink in for one moment, somewhat contrasting as it does with the endless upbeat social media back-slapping and foodie pics that passes for leadership via official HMPPS accounts nowadays. The trouble is, 'good leadership' is felt to be essential for any rehabilitation to take place.
So, with the job actually being a health hazard to its staff, it might just help explain the accelerating resignation figures highlighted by the workforce stats recently.
What about RAR days? Rehabilitation Activity Requirements? Basically a waste of time and should be done away with as we all know probation is a people business. What was needed was a return to probation's core business - supervision!
Was being part of the civil service a good idea and helpful with staff unable to speak openly? No. I'm pretty sure I heard someone from the Probation Institute confirm this. What about training? An Inspector in the audience made it plain they thought current training was woefully inadequate! Was there ever a golden age of probation? Apparently not and nostalgia was felt to be somewhat unhelpful, viewed as it often is through rose-tinted glasses and the subject of selective positive memories.
Now, readers at this point might be forgiven for being somewhat surprised to hear that the keynote speaker felt that probation can be rehabilitated! To be perfectly honest I struggle to see how this is likely and any supporting evidence for that view must have passed me by completely.
Finally, I couldn't help but give a wry smile hearing Irish probation and CEP President Gerry McNally say in the same breath that whilst nostalgia was not helpful, the Probation of Offenders Act of 1907 was still operational on the Emerald Isle and he remained mindful of 'advise, assist and befriend'!
I rest my case.
We had a glimpse of the future with London CRC- a case management system that was fit for purpose and allowed staff some relief from tedious admin tasks. SPO's without the time consuming allocation role- spending time with staff for development.
ReplyDeleteYou mean SPOs that were forced to have endless performance meetings with their staff. This was tiresome and patronising to say the least for all involved. No wonder London lost huge amounts of staff.
Deleteshort answer: No.
ReplyDeleteUnless ... probation is decoupled from the civil service, re-established as an independent agency AND the existing management structure is stripped out.
There was a post not so long ago which made suggestions about a new structure with a national chief officer & a diverse board overseeing the work.
Can't find it to repost but it looked interesting as a starting point.
It still requires the complacent collection of overpaid, over-rated uselessness that masquerades as management to be cleared out.
It still requires training to be significantly elevated to a professional level; not a faux degree or a collection of online sustifficates, but a thoroughly meaningful properly funded course of full-time study sandwiched with placement experience & skilled Tutors... NOT a salaried position which leaves the student at the mercy of their employer & obliged to attend to the whimsical requests of their line manager.
It took Grayling two shakes of a slaughtered lamb's tail to fuck it all up.
It will take years to 'rehabilitate' the traumatised service, address the collateral damage. An OASys would likely highlight some key areas of need:
* attitudes
* relationships
* lifestyle
* behaviour
Could that scenario have a familiar ring to it?
It's too late to rehabilitate the current service.
ReplyDeleteIt would require surgery.
Take a stem cell from the real ethos of probation,and grow it separately and away from all the other shite.
G4s and Serco do 'supervision' , probation needs to be something more.
'Getafix
Yes gtx and rid of us of the menu illustrations of dinner munching idiotic .
DeleteI know I keep barking on about it - can we have a discussion around the job losses coming. I was in CRC. I liked NPS as I thought their were prim and proper and I was just a down and out. I could not wait to come across. I do feel that that still feel a sense of shame coming in as a second rate staff member. Civil Service with new IT seems really posh. I don't know how long its going it last for. We need to talk about job losses. Thanks
ReplyDeleteWas it ever much different for you those under our supervision. It was just a nicer job for those working in Probation, it used to be a cushy number. That’s what most oldies really miss!
ReplyDeleteAnnon@14:22
DeleteThis might not pass the moderation test, but your comments represent perfectly what has gone wrong, and is wrong with the probation service of today.
In my opinion, you would probably be more suited to the passport office then the probation service.
'Getafix
"Send all the bleeding heart lefties to Rwanda & let the young guns have their day running the country. Then we won't have to listen to them bleating about masks, whining about immigrants or crying about parties. We can move the government's agenda forward, i.e. If you can pay you can play, otherwise take a seat & we'll get back to you - eventually."
DeleteThis is the 'vibe' I'm increasingly getting in the UK.
The UK is not a nice place to be at the moment.
233me. We should be taking collective action. The Unions are unfortunately a waste of space on this front so what we need to do as a group is start collecting proof of the collective harm to health and find a good lawyer who deals with no win no fee work related injury claims and make a collective claim for industrial injury. Could include all the PO's who have already left due to work related injury. Hit them where it hurts as it's the only way and will highlight the abhorrent working conditions and lack of duty of care.
ReplyDeleteMy post this morning was a bit rushed and I forgot to mention that at the tail end there was a spirited plea from another academic for practitioners to engage with the various journals to make sure their voice was heard. This brought a further wry smile to my face as I reflected that maybe engaging with an established blog might prove rather speedier and possibly more effective.
ReplyDeleteKeep in there Jim you have kept the only forum open independent and free of Napo cronyism. Only your blog show the history.
ReplyDeleteMoJ Wastes £98m On Tagging
ReplyDeletehttps://www.russellwebster.com/moj-wastes-98m-on-tagging/
Tagging, polygraph, time to stop following useless USA’s headline grabbing initiatives.
HMPPS could’ve instead given each Probation Officer £25k. Imagine what that’d done for morale.
"today’s report from the National Audit Office finds that the government’s electronic monitoring programme is a shambles. The new tagging system is years overdue and the MoJ had to write off £98m when it terminated the Gemini contract run by Capita. Most importantly, the NAO concludes that:
Delete“Evidence on the effectiveness of tagging remains weak, particularly on reducing reoffending and diverting offenders from prison”.
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/electronic-monitoring-a-progress-update/
DeleteReport conclusions
HMPPS has launched new services, extended tagging to new groups of offenders and taken pragmatic steps to reduce delivery risks. But it has not achieved the fundamental transformation of tagging services it intended and has wasted £98 million through its failed attempt to develop the Gemini case management system. It did not manage the implications of its complex delivery model effectively, set overly prescriptive requirements and did not perform its role as systems and service integrator effectively. HMPPS’s decision to stop Gemini in 2021 was well-founded in the circumstances and protected the taxpayer from further losses. However, its lack of focus on monitoring benefits and continued poor evidence base means that – more than 10 years into the programme – Parliament still does not have a clear view on what it has achieved or whether electronic monitoring is an effective intervention. To date, HMPPS has not achieved value for money.
Why is NAPO so silent?
ReplyDeleteBecause Napo keeps the subs money for itself. Too many Napo reps form the biggest set of bullies that collude with senior managers and only support its like-minded friends.
Did Napo ever resolve its racism problem in London?
Does anyone actually read those journals? They are so dry and so removed form day to day reality of the job I doubt many do, unless maybe they are retired and missing the stimulation of Probation World. On another note when I told my manager how I felt about the post CRC world and inability to keep up with everything I was pretty much told by him to look for another job. Demonstration of great management skills and motivational interviewing. Next time a POP tells me they are struggling to cope with their life I should maybe take a leaf from his book and say ' stop whingeing and get on with it or ship out you loser'. I'm sure as long as I put a load of twaddle on my Delius entry , smile inanely and get my OASYS in on time, not forgetting the 4 pillars I would get top marks from the performance Police!
ReplyDeleteFrom Twitter:-
Delete"Clearly your manager has no concern regarding the impact of your departure on your colleagues either. Otherwise they would be trying to put everything they could in place to keep you. Screams volumes doesn’t it."
From Twitter:-
Delete"Hated doing Oasys as an offender supervisor as they were a tick box exercise especially as doing a decent manful sentence plan was impossible due to budget cuts, so glad I got back onto residential supervising officer work!!"
From Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"I took a pay cut to leave pqip/ probation. Haven't regretted it for a day. Also it didn't last long because my skills and experience were recognised (unlike with them) and rewarded with promotion. Go for it!"
It's been brought to my attention that Napo recently published a statement "AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 32A OF TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992" dated 26th May 2022 and relevant parts include:-
ReplyDeleteIncome and Expenditure
The total income of the union for the period was £1,205,886. This amount included payments of £1,141,404 in respect of membership of the union. The union’s total expenditure for the period was £1,351,985. The union does not maintain a political fund.
Salary paid to and other benefits provided to the General Secretary, President and members of the Executive
The current General Secretary of the union was paid £90,062 in respect of salary and £5,044 in respect of Pension.
My correspondent makes the following observation:-
"I note that the union spent 100k more than its income and that expenditure on the General Secretary amounted to more than 95k. I have always supported the notion of a fair days pay for a fair days work. We have seen the pay, where/what/when will we see the work to justify this?"
cnomis, tags, tr etc etc - anyone know what the total loss of public funds by this shower of excrement has been in the last decade?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Public-Sector-IT/What-went-wrong-with-234m-C-Nomis-IT-project
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/03/mojs-probation-services-contracting-botched-and-costly
cnomis = £234million
tr = £467million
tags = £98million
subtotal = £799million
Please add to this list so we can get a glimpse of how utterly useless our 'excellent leaders' actually are:
That's a lot of taxpayers' money lost; but they're all still in post drawing eyewatering salaries paid for by... the taxpayer!
The very same taxpayer who is paying through the nose for fuel, food, shit MPs, etc etc etc.
Oh how they must be pissing themselves laughing at us.
@14:03, you forgot £80million from the Modernising Fund in 2014/5 - allegedly to pay for redundancies, but actually to line the pockets of the CRCs.
DeleteI still find it deeply offensive & a barely recognised scandal that, on the ideological whim of a right wing government, £80million of public money was quietly handed over to private businesses to make hundreds of skilled & experienced probation staff unemployed.
It was a malicious & vindictive bribe, one intended to give the impression that the CRC contracts were viable while dismantling a once-proud profession for POLITICAL gain.
The fact that those businesses never passed the cash on & pocketed it for their own benefit is also a scandal.
The fact that the government openly sanctioned that theft was salt in the wound, viz:-
"As part of the arrangements for the transfer of services from probation trusts to Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s), an enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme was put in place, in line with the terms of the National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections agreed with the probation Trade Unions, and funded by monies from the Modernisation Fund to support a sustainable reduction in resource requirements. An initial wave of redundancies was made in advance of the letting of the contracts for the CRCs, and the remaining monies were transferred to the CRCs on a pro rata basis to be used for the same purpose. While we have no plans to reclaim any monies allocated to CRCs from the Modernisation Fund, we have robust contract management arrangements in place to ensure that they are used for the purposes for which they were provided." Andrew Selous Assistant Whip (HM Treasury), The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice
The fact that the probation Trade Unions signed off on a deal knowing the government would use public money to pay private businesses to make hundreds of their members unemployed was the final insult.
I do not think all of this was the intention but more a process of privateers working through a process of stealing our terms. The problems came from Napo failing to take any legal cases to protect staff. The failure of many staff who accepted reduced offers is what made things impossible to be managed and the non members doing what they thought was good but way short. Napo remain beset with a bunch of do badly dishonest wafflers and we need to see the likes of the current incompetence gone. Napo needs a real union base not the current professional nonsense it clings to when the job is no longer a serious activity.
DeleteIt was a calculated act to debilitate & damage a profession that politicians didn't understand & had been struggling to take control of. Labour had already unilaterally imposed Trust status & laid the groundwork with OM Act 2007. Grayling & co simply kicked down an open door.
Delete"The failure of many staff who accepted reduced offers is what made things impossible to be managed" - absolutely not the case. It was not a failure on the part of those staff. Napo members & non-members alike were shafted, bullied & harangued. They were exploited, abused & their unemployment was inevitable. Most were salvaging what they could.
The failure was with Napo who signed the deal in the knowledge staff would be lost - that's why govt agreed the Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy package & made the £80million available. They all knew what was coming. The privateers acted illegally but govt couldn't criticise them now they'd handed over the bribes or the whole sleight of hand would be exposed. That's why (1) they gave the CRCs the green light to keep the cash & (2) Napo were leant on to keep quiet & do nothing.
Sodexo had Grayling in their pocket. Remember the HMI Probation inspector who had to resign? The one who was CEO of Nacro, the charity who were in partnership with Sodexo for the CRC bids? The one who's wife just happened to be a Sodexo director?
"The resignation follows the disclosure by the Guardian that McDowell’s wife, Janine, was managing director of Sodexo Justice Services, which was named as preferred bidder to supervise tens of thousands of offenders in six of the 21 probation areas in England and Wales.
The justice select committee has also questioned McDowell’s position after the Guardian disclosure and the failure of Grayling to disclose the potential conflict of interest at the time of his appointment in November 2013. He took up the post in February 2014."
When did McDowell resign? February 2015.
Which CRC issued redundancy notices in July 2015? Erm, Sodexo.
When was the 7 month no-redundancy clause due to end? Erm, September 2015.
Sodexo took the biggest slice of the govt's EVR bribe & handed out as little as they could get away with, using threats & frighteners to ensure staff took their offer, safe in the knowledge that the govt/MoJ had Napo hostage.
The whole sad debacle was nothing but spiteful, controlling, coercive acts of bullying. The redundancies in 2015 were vindictive revenge porn for Sodexo & Grayling being thwarted, just when they thought they had 'their man' in HMI Probation. Someone had to pay. The EVR & Modernisation Fund monies were already in place, so what to do?
Despite the claims that the CRCs were merely a simple transfer of ownership & all obligations, Sodexo saw their opportunity & said they were NOT obliged to honour the EVR agreement. The govt changed the rules for the EVR money. Napo went dark.
The staff who were thrown overboard had no chance.
It will be interesting to one day find out exactly what deal Napo HQ did with Grayling & co.
Arhhhh probably none actually. You have made reference to some things but Sodexo and partners is nothing that pacts on the individual staff member and their employment contract. Any alternative offers made and which were accepted are not illegal as suggested. You might appreciate there is no law preventing an offer or acceptance. In fact the only position Napo could respond to was any compulsory redundancies that did not offer the full provision of terms and pensions for over 55 year olds. The compulsory position of dismissals was not utilised and there is nothing unlawful about the foolish staff who grabbed a deal before making the employers invoke the compulsory terms. They should have waited put simply. Also on this blog a Napo branch known for its capable protection of staff published the game plan to protect members and the losers clearly did not heed the Napo branch advice. That said the south west had major fighting with busted working links and although they played the same games that Napo branch was the major talent in defeating them with a fantastic team of local trade unionists despite meddling Napo national.
Delete"foolish staff who grabbed a deal"
Delete"the losers clearly did not heed the Napo branch advice."
I'm glad I no longer have any reason to interact with such kind, caring, understanding probation staff.
You might have been an early deal taker and may well by now recognise the gross errors many individuals made when taking a deal. I have merely pointed out the anger in your posts has nothing to do with employment law . These matter of fact process do not care for the sensitive just the lawful agreements on managing and closing contracts. The fact is the members were all notified by Napo branch of the procedure to follow and to ensure any staff seeking exit should not engage in any voluntary measures. Those that did would and indeed could not be protected as they varied by agreements their own terms and job. Bemoaning me as insensitive is perhaps more a reflection of something else I just want to ensure there is some balance to your very subjective position which is invariably just not accurate as to what could have been done or what really happened.
Delete@08:01 here - I rather think that you, @17:05, seem to thrive on making assumptions & believing in your own propaganda; something that is glaringly obvious in your posts; not least is that you assume @13:01 is the same person.
Delete1. Individuals did not make 'gross errors'; they made difficult choices under duress & were not able to access advice or information when it mattered most. Napo went dark for a reason.
2. Whilst Napo members may have been made aware of "the procedure to follow", non-Napo members were not. The privateers were very keen to achieve 'target numbers', & they did this in many cases without needing Napo members to sign up. This gave them considerable leverage.
3. Some individual Napo members were targetted by CRC managers & threatened 'off the record' that if they didn't take the voluntary severance they would be "managed out & get nothing". I'm aware of at least three such cases.
4. I am aware of at least two staff who were members of different unions (from past employment history) who achieved as-good-as-EVR deals early on, because their union lawyers represented them strongly & the CRC gave in - presumably knowing they were acting immorally, if not unlawfully. Otherwise why cave in?
5. Your language is both intemperate & judgemental. Those that did take voluntary severance were, in my experience, deeply distressed & conflicted, & made choices under duress. I will never condemn them or call them names for the choices they made, even if I didn't agree with them.
6. After issuing bland "do not enter into agreements" messages, Napo was totally silent when individuals approached them for advice. I know - I was trying to get answers for them.
7. What balance can be brought to a situation when a trade union enters into a pact with an employer where, knowingly & with their blessing, that union agrees to meaningless terms which will make their members unemployed?
8. The Sec of State made it clear that transfer to CRC was facilitated by a transfer of ownership & it did NOT affect employees' terms & conditions, hence there was no TUPE arrangement. The EVR agreement should therefore have been honoured by the new owners - and yes, one area did finally achieve that under rebel leadership & I applaud that. The govt should have insisted the CRCs honour that agreement but, as stated earlier, their commitment to the TR project rode roughshod over any & all legal niceties.
I am angry & outraged that a government did this to probation staff and to the probation profession.
I find it deeply sad that there are still probation staff who entertain the belief that finger-pointing & blaming probation staff is valid.
Making any choices under duress is gross error. Too many signed up to the severance offer . Whether bullied or not or a gross personal error are matters for the individuals. The legal victories of some illustrate all the staff should have simply rejected the severance variation. It was an awful unfair sharp practice. Whatever upset that remains for all affected badly was still choice. I am just making it clear anyone taking severance as it described deviated from the national staff agreement protection. Non members were obviously not likely to get legal protection from Napo but we're advised to join the union for support . In some areas staff thwarted the thefts of their redundancies value. In many cases I know of the push against 53 year olds . This had a legal risk to dismiss by voluntary agreement or compulsory when the detriment to long earned pensions was so disproportionate Napo collapsed the privateers approaches in a battle via the media council motions and national dispute to acas. It is all published on this blog and the route to protections was made clear as the campaign was supported in national bulletins made possible on this Kim brown blog. Too many criticised as I read now than take the more difficult route and to fight than to stand up for yourselves. Instead buckling under the nice privateers new imposed bluff of 28 day offer. Just foolish gross errors as said. Exactly what their lawyers advised would happen .
DeleteAnd there you have it, folks. If you were one of the hundreds who lost your employment when the CRCs cleared out staff, it was YOUR fault. YOU were foolish. YOU took the easy, cowardly way out. Serves you right. You deserve nothing. Napo warned you. You only have yourselves to blame. You just buckled under.
DeleteIt reminds me of whichever fuckwit (David Davis I think) referring to the current calamities besetting the UK as being due to the fact we're experiencing "Remainer's Brexit".
I have not blamed . I am surprised your anger after such a time admonishes everyone else . Napo the management the government and more correctly the employers as contract holders. What we all have to appreciate is individual responsibility not some false expectation or naive belief the authority will treat us all with gloves and cotton wool. No they wanted a profit and did not care how they took our terms of protection. All the more reason if your so strong at this rejection where were you when the fighting and blood was being spilt. I am well able to recall local threats of the same but in solidarity our area was combative and used the agreement to the bitter end and those in membership did not lose a dime or a term . In fact new staff were also paid up on better probation pay as was the contract holders own staff as it was collective battle. Please read the blog over all this information was shared and batteled out weekly . Why no one in your area took heed is not a reason to criticise areas who understood the battle plan or management's attacks to all staff. Keep in mind the turncoat cpos acos these are the people who attacked staff on behalf of the contractors. Not the unions chum.
Delete"I have not blamed"
DeletePerhaps something is lost in translation because these comments sound very much like apportioning blame:
"the foolish staff who grabbed a deal"
"the losers clearly did not heed the Napo branch advice."
"buckling under the bluff"
"Just foolish gross errors"
But its all over now. Probation lies lifeless in the grip of HMPPS under pseudo-civil service t's-&-c's, controlled by utter incompetents, without a pay rise & likely to suffer further ignominies.
What's coming to probation offices is beyond the wildest imagination, and its going to hurt.
Who imagined MPs would stand up in Parliament & loudly cheer the news that refugees will be transported to Rwanda using public money to charter planes? That's exactly what happened yesterday.
Peter Bone MP even demanded the flights should be overbooked - a la RyanAir or EasyJet - to avoid lefty lawyers impacting on the cost-effectiveness. Liz Truss said today the principle must be established, even if the plane leaves without a single refugee, and that the Rwanda flights represent "value for money".
Commercial transit of refugees - Slave Trade in 2022 by any other name.
And very soon you'll find Probation staff will be required to contribute to the process; as civil servants acting on behalf of the UK government you will have no choice, no opportunity to opt out.
Ref earlier info about McDowells.
DeleteMrs McD was heavily involved in the TR process, not just on the periphery as many believed. Her timeline shows the seniority she had at Sodexo whilst hubby was CEO of Nacro & deals were being done between Sodexo, Nacro & MoJ. Sodexo picked up the biggest share of the CRC contracts with six areas & they were already thick as thieves with MoJ via-HMP contracts.
Mrs McD's employment timeline:
Small business owner - holiday lets
Self-employed Sep 2021 - Present = 10 months
CEO Sodexo Justice UK&I
Sep 2015 - Aug 2021 = 6 years
Dep. Managing Director, Sodexo Justice Services
Jan 2010 - Aug 2015 = 5 years 8 months
I think @08:01 might have a point, especially in light of the recent corruption, law-breaking & deceit this govt has shown they're not afraid of involving themselves in.
Panorama tonight, dilutation of GP to PAs - cost saving putting lives at risk. No accountability. Risk reduction commonplace with outsourcing .in this case referring medicines or treatment to private companies. This ABSOLUTELY mirrors modern probation. I am with PCS and fully intend to seek legal advice from them with a view to whistleblowing. I am fortunate to be in a position where I am not constrained by a financial leash but fuck if I am going to walk away from 23 years service without having my voice heard. It is disgraceful what our service has become and so sad that new colleagues will never experience how rewarding this career used to be.
ReplyDeleteI read the following government announcement with interest.
ReplyDeleteThere's clearly problems with releasing some prisoners on a Friday ahead of the weekend.
But doesn't the statement also acknowledge significant failures by not doing enough with people whilst in custody, or enough to prepare them for release?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/end-to-friday-releases-to-cut-crime-and-make-streets-safer
'Getafix
As part of a package of prison reforms announced today (14 June 2022), which also includes a £25million investment in security measures, selected offenders’ release will be brought forward by up to 48 hours to stop them lapsing immediately back towards a life of crime.
DeleteFigures show that around 1 in 3 offenders currently leave prison on a Friday – giving them just a few short hours to arrange a bed for the night, register with a GP and sign-up for job support to keep them on the straight and narrow before services shut down for the weekend.
This race against the clock can end up with ex-offenders spending their first days on the streets with little in the way of support – increasing the likelihood they will commit further crimes.
Under plans announced today by Prisons Minister Victoria Atkins, offenders with severe mental health needs or addiction problems, or who have mobility problems, likely to end up homeless or who have far to travel home, will be released on the Wednesday or Thursday before their Friday release date, with strict security screenings in place.
The move is expected to result in significantly fewer crimes each year – meaning fewer victims, less crime and safer streets.
Prisons Minister Victoria Atkins, said:
Changing the rules so that well-behaved offenders can be released a day or two ahead of the end of their sentence will ultimately result in fewer victims and less crime.
Making sure ex-offenders can get suitable housing and support ahead of the weekend means they are far more likely to stay on the straight and narrow – reducing reoffending and making our streets safer.
Campbell Robb, Nacro chief executive said:
For too long Friday releases have been setting people up to fail. Our campaign to end Friday releases was driven by the experience of our staff and service users and we are pleased to see this change. It is vital this is there for everyone who needs it.
Now people will have vital extra time during the working week to secure housing, register with probation and access health services. This will help people have the best chance at their second chance.
The announcement is part of a package of sweeping reforms outlined in the government’s response to the public consultation on its Prisons Strategy White Paper, published in December last year.
Ministers have also detailed a new £25 million investment in prison security that will step up the war against mobile phones behind bars by equipping front-line staff with upgraded, cutting-edge phone detectors.
The cash will also be used to significantly increase the number of special machines that can detect microscopic smears of illegal substances such as spice on prisoners’ mail, stopping dangerous drugs from getting onto wings and wreaking havoc.
The latest figures show the government’s previous £100 million investment in jail security has thwarted over 20,000 plots to smuggle drugs, phones and weapons into prisons over the past 2 years.
Some snippets from parliamentary written answers:
ReplyDeleteHow much has HMPPS spent on consultants?
2019: £2.9million, of which £524,000 was on 'probation' & £1.3million on 'community interventions'
2020: £5million, of which £1.9million was on 'reducing reoffending', the rest was on prisons
2021: £5million - all of which was spent on prisons
____________________________________________
How much was spent on agency staff in April 2022?
EastMids - £61,000
East of England - £164,000
GtrManchester - £51,000
KSS - £140,000
London - £367,000
NE - £40,000
NW - £55,000
SouthCentral - £70,000
SW - £46,000
Wales - £15,000
WMids - £116,000
Yorks+Humber - £53,000
Total about £1.2million for April 2022.
______________________________________________
Cost of agency staff for probation, Apr'21 - Mar'22:
Operational Agency Staff: no.=734 cost = £23,069,614
Admin/Clerical Agency Staff: no.=541 cost = £6,020,447
Tot: about £30million
____________________________________________
"The difference between required staffing and staff in post in the Probation Service Total = -1,106 at 31 March 2022"
____________________________________________
Cheap money no pensions in that lot of calcs so FTE staff remain shafted to low pay and over working hours . Sessional staff get easy money no commitment works well for them . Crap for the rest.
DeleteIf the routes into the service have been dumbed down, then I don't understand why people wouldn't expect dumbed down pay?
ReplyDeleteSurely one follows the other?
'Getafix
Not sessional gtx you will appreciate they have no on costs so they grab and go with golden hourly rates.
DeleteSalaried staff cost more than agency staff - add ons (employer’s NI, Pension contributions, holiday pay and sick pay) all add up
ReplyDelete1804 it is not blame but a description of what people chose and so many living with such huge regrets. The desire to leave at any cost, perhaps, the pushed and unwelcome experienced colleagues . Do you assume others have no knowledge of what went on. However you still see things anyone choosing to sign and succumb to the abuse could not be protected nor argue after the event. Those leaving in droves weakened the stalwart remainers who fought on and that severance game of the contractors divided and conquered. Just some of sharper groups were able to defend to the full terms and no thanks to national Napo for that.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this has a lot to do with ending Friday discharges from prison?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/prison-leavers-tagged-to-cut-alcohol-fuelled-crime
'Getafix
Prison leavers will be ordered to wear a sobriety tag, which monitors alcohol levels in sweat, if their probation officer thinks they could reoffend when drinking. This will help probation officers keep a closer eye on offenders’ behaviour and support them to turn their backs on crime.
DeleteAlcohol is believed to play a part in 39 percent of violent crime in the UK and roughly 20 percent of offenders supervised by the Probation Service are identified as having drinking issues. The tags also give offenders the incentive to break bad habits as breaching the alcohol restrictions could see them back in prison.
Today’s launch follows the rollout of the scheme in Wales last year. Figures show that offenders on a tag have stuck to their alcohol restrictions on 97 percent of time, helping to cut crime and protecting the public.
Deputy Prime Minister, Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab MP said:
We’ve seen that alcohol tags work - with tagged offenders complying 97 percent of the time.
That’s why we’re going to double the number wearing them from 900 to 1,900 over the next two years, focusing on those leaving prison on licence.
This is a big step forward using the latest technology to cut the link between alcohol abuse and the crime - and make our streets safer.
Since offenders were first tagged in 2020, they have been used on over 3,600 criminals in total. The latest statistics showed that 900 offenders were wearing the tag on March 31st, and following today’s rollout, that number is expected to double by 2024.
Arthur, a 37-year-old from Swansea, turned his chaotic life around after being ordered to wear an alcohol tag as part of a community sentence for malicious communication in January 2021.
Arthur said:
Being sober for 6 months helped me keep all my emotions in check. I thought clearly, it was one of the best things that ever happened to me.
The tag helped me realise that tomorrow would always be worse if I drank today with emotions running high.
Probation Minister Kit Malthouse said:
When I first brought alcohol tags to the UK over a decade ago, I knew that given the chance, they could have a huge impact on crime. The great results we have seen so far, and now the expansion announced this week, mean that the use of tagging technology is firmly embedded as a critical tool for offender managers, proving a huge incentive for offenders to change.
The move is part of the government’s plan to cut crime, expanding the use of innovative technology like tags to protect the public and drive down reoffending.
In efforts cut reoeffending, last year, the government also launched a world-first, using GPS tags to track robbers, thieves and burglars.
In total, an extra £183 million will be invested in electronic monitoring by 2025 to almost double the number of people tagged at any one time to approximately 25,000.
There's a great piece in the Napo Journal about values and ethics: stirred my soul and I recommend it, not least as the authors argue that doing the right thing, based on principles of social justice and basic decency within the all important professional/supervisory relationship is not only rewarding for all involved, but actually effective. I have become so polluted by the current culture that when I cast my mind back to better probation days, I pulled myself up on the basis that I was having a great time, I was having fun. I can predict the slough of irate criticism that might greet that observation, that it was fun. My lord, what have we come to, when the idea that work might be fun, that we could have a laugh, that we enjoyed our work, is anathema. If you can harness the bubbling optimism and creativity of people, you get stuff done. It would be an act of glorious rebellion to have fun in a probation office.
ReplyDeleteLets be honest here. What chance is there of this under the present HMPPS command and control regime?
DeleteAbstract
Discussions of probation's values can be enriched by an appreciation of care ethics. This approach is explained with attention to its emphasis on relationships and individualisation. The implications for probation's work are explored, including its significance for the supervisory relationship, its challenges for the management of the organisation and the value of individualised approaches. Care ethics argues for practice shaped not by rules and processes, but by people and their circumstances in all their diversity. Care ethics offers a principled and effective approach to probation's work.
"Lets be honest here. What chance is there of this under the present HMPPS command and control regime?"
DeleteI agree.
But I'm also of the opinion that there's an awful lot of people working in todays probation service that would be against the service adopting such an approach.
The problem is no longer just external to the service, it's become embedded within.
The general issues expressed by most about high case loads, pay, bullying and micro managing are pretty universal, but those issues don't by themselves necessarily express a disagreement or discontent about the current ethos of probation services, what its purpose is, or the direction the service is travelling in.
'Getafix
Just read this from yesterday.
DeleteVictoria Atkins talking about modernising the CJS.
It's a lengthy read that covers almost all areas of the CJS.
Almost, but probation doesn't even get a mention. I find it strange that it doesn't because the focus of the talk centres on rehabilitation and positive interventions and support to prevent offending and reducing reoffending.
Maybe she sees probation as having nothing to do with those things???
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/victoria-atkins-speaks-at-the-modernising-criminal-justice-conference
'Getafix
Getafix - The Tory playbook has been used to erase 'probation' from the CJS lexicon, the CJS world. Not just the term 'probation', but the philosophy, the approach, the concept. They have (see also your views at 10:12 above) used TR to remove resistance & are now grooming & releasing new HMPPS-friendly recruits into the system.
Delete