I guess most regular readers have come to appreciate the limitations of this medium, one being occasionally a significant contribution is missed if it's submitted to an earlier post and the caravan has moved on. I spotted this from a few hours ago, but posted on a blog from 2nd August and therefore unlikely to be noticed, and that would be a shame because it raises an important point:-
I would also add that managers, or as they say these days leaders, tend to ensure that they are viewed as vital to an organisations success, or at least not responsible for any failures. This is often represented by larger than inflation pay rises and the rather curious phenomenon of failing ever upwards. Great job if you can pull one. Further, they tend to see themselves as leaders of change. Organisational change tends to be fuelled by leaders that want to be seen as effective. Even though the change itself will bring with it no benefits. We are told that change is vital and progressive, when in fact, the opposite is often the case.
Witness the Probation Service which appears to have taken this notion and flogged it to death. This mantra has had a peculiar effect on Senior Leaders who embrace change (any change) as a good thing in itself and neglect the impact this constant churn (sorry but I couldn’t resist a popular management phrase. It means staff leave) can have on people, processes, communication, waste, confusion and morale.
Perhaps we should see these reorganisations for what they are, not what is claimed. It is often embarked upon with little evidence as to why change is required. It’s benefits often fail to outweigh the detrimental impact it can have on local delivery. Staff become weary and confused as systems change. And most importantly the change often makes things worse.
So, you may ask why? Well the short answer is because we have layers of management who need to be seen to be taking action. They need to justify their worth, if you like. The addition of yet another regional layer is a clear example of this process. Yet despite everything nothing improves. Which begs the observation that this is now working perfectly. If the change you have introduced fails then you have a win, because you will then need to recruit more senior leaders to introduce yet further changes, thereby further securing that layer of management and ensuring your worth.
The Civil Service is a model of this approach. It is top heavy, implements structural changes on a monthly basis (it feels), the changes fail and responsibility is pushed down and the authors of this despair toddle off on a further promotion. Things will not get better as they are not designed like that, they are designed to keep people busy. I appreciate that this comes close to cliche but Beckett sums it up "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
Often misunderstood and/or at least overly used by management people. His summation was really about the emptiness and pointlessness of life. So a bit like being a Senior Leader in todays Probation Service.
Anon
“Fail again. Fail better”. Sums up probation managers with their delusional self-importance.
ReplyDeleteand so those of us subject to the whims of the 'strong, excellent leaders" are, in fact, victims of their vainglorious failures; hostage to their pointlessness while they pocket the ransom & we sit obediently tied to the consequences in understaffed offices waiting to be set free - but by who? And when?
ReplyDeleteJust a minute...thought I heard something....thought it was NAPO doing something...but it was just the whistling in the wind
ReplyDeleteSurely these catastrophic inspection results are the glorious leaderships equivalent of an SFO and you would expect them to receive the same treatment as any case carrying officer when circumstances conspire against them. Investigation, blame, finger pointing and career destroyed.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference being that Main grade staff have no control over policy or procedures, they are there simply as individuals to be held to account.
The rot goes right to the top but it’s the can lad that gets the sack.
Its no different in any of our public services. The government is full of people who hate government, so they dont govern. Because they hate government, and governing, they have stripped out all our services, aka the infrastructure. And then divert attention by pointing at the most vulnerable as the source of our problems. Its an old reliable trick of the nastiest of regimes.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, when anything goes wrong all processes simply manage blame down the staff grades it NEVER looks up the grades to leaders and their lack of strategic errr, leadership.
ReplyDeleteA fish rots from it's head
ReplyDeleteI wrote my dissertation on the introduction of new public managerialism to the CJS back in 2000. It’s so sad that I was so right. Increasing centralisation of governance with decentralisation of ‘responsibility’ for failures. The focus on boxes ticked to measure performance without meaningful qualitative analysis. It’s all so depressingly predictable.
ReplyDeleteYouth offending team inspections either excellent or good . Delivered locally, led locally and meets the needs of the community.. Not managed by layers of bureaucracy from the centre… probation use to be like that!!
DeleteTalking of constant churn and change has anyone grasped the enormity of what ‘they’ are doing to the programmes teams nationally ?!
ReplyDeletehmi probation
ReplyDeleteDorset PDU Fieldwork started June 2023
Score 3/27 (11%)
"Dorset PDU had been without a substantive head of service for two years... Whilst we were encouraged to see a full staffing complement of Senior Probation Officers (SPOs) who were approachable and visible, the overall management oversight of cases was insufficient, ineffective or absent in 29 out of 42 relevant cases we reviewed. Workloads were felt to be unmanageable for 82 per cent of practitioners surveyed, and the vacancy rate for qualified probation officer (POs) was 49.5 per cent"
Fail Again. Fail Better. But Fail they do, every time.
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/03/An-inspection-of-probation-services-in-Dorset-PDU.pdf
what won't the tories do to ensure their narrative overrules anything else?
ReplyDeletehttps://rozenberg.substack.com/p/dont-call-us-lefty
"Despite a full complement of middle managers, at the time of our inspection they had a 45 per cent vacancy rate for qualified probation officers." Dorset PDU inspection. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/inspections/dorsetpdu2023/
ReplyDeleteI find the terminology around managers really interesting, I often read/ hear the term “middle manager” “ senior leaders” etc but not once have I seen the term ‘junior manager’ used. Would the combination of junior and manager be deemed demeaning then? Does a manager only start at “middle”? Really interesting positional phrasing me thinks.
ReplyDeleteYou mean lower managers. That should be admin managers, buildings managers and any other managers at band 4 and below that shouldn’t earn the same as Probation Officers who do a hell of alot more.
DeleteSPOs and Deputy PDU heads are more accurately middle managers. Deputies would disagree.
Senior managers are more accurately Heads of PDU and above. Heads of operations would disagree.
I think it’s interesting all of the above are called “leaders” when many could not lead out of a paper bag.
Nope I really did mean junior but thanks for telling me what I meant!
DeleteDon’t be so touchy!
DeleteJunior Management means people in a supervisory role with limited authority. Junior management commonly comprises supervisors, foremen and superintendents, who are technically skilled or academically qualified. They are restricted to making routine decisions which are usually process related.
Lower-level managers deal with operating and supervising day-to-day activities. They may work as foremen, section heads, or supervisors. Lower-level managers are directly involved in the production process. They supervise workers in carrying out their daily work.
The levels of management can be classified in three broad categories:
DeleteTop level/Administrative level
Middle level/Executory
Low level/Supervisory/Operative/First-line managers
BUT what about OFFICERS - I reckon that means has ultimate responsibility for decisions relating to tasks allocated to them - so a Chief Probation Officer cannot tell a case holding probation officer how to manage a client BUT she can reallocate responsibility for the supervision of that client to another officer.
DeleteWalk into any PDU office today and you will see SPOs, business managers, office managers, performance officers, maybe a performance manager, diary manager and then all the supporting staff that are linked to those functions… The actual make up of the case carrying POs/PSOs/PQuips will be less than 50%…lots of empire building going on
ReplyDeleteFrom Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"Where has prisons taken over? That’s a very negative view of the probation service. It’s not a poor little underdog scrabbling around for attention. And prisons are not responsible for our workloads, pay, recruitment issues, quality of management. It’s civil service/HQ at fault."
“It’s not a poor little underdog scrabbling around for attention. And prisons are not responsible for our workloads, pay, recruitment issues, quality of management.”
DeleteErm, yes it is and yes they are.
Probation senior managers couldn’t be more attention hungry with their all staff briefings and patronising social media snaps. Prisons absorbed probation staff into the lazy OMUs and doomed OMiC. Prison managers dominate HMPPS and OneHMPPS will bring in new structures with prison senior managers heading some probation regions. It’s no wonder Probation is always buddying up with the police to get a bit of attention.
Look at the round of other pay rises going around in the public sector and ask if your valued ? Probation is not a skilled job now hence rubbish pay
ReplyDeleteYou get a lot more than a pso for the same unskilled work stop complaining leave for better pay.
DeleteThis may sound controversial but I no longer feel that the title probation officer means anything, in fact it has been so diluted that it has lost all credibility with sentencers ,clients and the public - near and far. What was an internationally recognised service,drawing numerous international consultant roles, it is now dominated by non probation officer levels of management without a moral compass. Racists get promoted, bullies advance their careers and promotions are so clearly linked to sichophantic allegiances/ subservience. I have 2 years until retirement and I have collated a library of facts, including a statement that risk assessment was “reduced for operational reasons”.
ReplyDeletePlease post the facts and statement here. It’d be a nice guest blog.
DeleteThe world of probation-now is so very alien to the world of probation-past. The following exchange from this blog is one example (it may have involved more than two people but I've used nomenclature to indicate call & response):
ReplyDeleteA: not once have I seen the term ‘junior manager’ used
B: You mean lower managers.
A: Nope I really did mean junior but thanks for telling me what I meant!
B: Don’t be so touchy!
And then we have the concrete intervention intended to end the debate:
C: The levels of management can be classified in three broad categories... yada-yada-yada
And that's exactly how we've learnt to behave during the last 13 years of tory govt, i.e. a frigid rigid absolutist approach; I'm right, you're wrong, end of (raises hand, turns & walks away).
Its exactly how hmpps behave & how hmpps want you to behave with each other & those sent to your offices by the courts.
At present physicists have two separate rulebooks, one for the bigger stuff (relativity) and one for the smaller stuff (quantum).
Relativity: "every cause matches up to a specific, local effect" ...
As a frontline practitioner your performance will determine your pay, your continued employment status & whether you are SFO fodder.
However, quantum rules allow connections forbidden by classical physics...
As a strong leader your performance is irrelevant to your ongoing employment, there are manifold excuses offered in your defence & you get to choose who is SFO fodder.
How so? Well, hmpps will be more than happy to tell you that "Relativity gives nonsensical answers when you try to scale it down to quantum size". Simples.
And that's how they roll.
Its obfuscation, gaslighting, coercion & control designed to retain privilege & power in a few hands.
As an observer I read that as junior and lower managers have quite similar meanings. The terminology for levels of management tiers both terms in a similar way too.
DeleteI think you are touchy and the type that think they know it all. This has always been a trend amongst probation officers, the holier than thou type that like the sound of their own voice.
The rest of what you said went totally over my head. No idea how you reached your conclusion but it does seem like you need a bit of time off.
And when challenged, out comes that very modern passive-aggressive riposte & patronising "have a lie down dear, you're not making sense"
DeleteI think the issue of degradation of role and authority is an issue and a product of the hyper managerialism discussed above.
ReplyDeleteI have been an SPO for a long time, I used to have a job which contributed to strategic development in the community, I now just tick boxes and 'supervise' staff who have also lost autonomy. So far as I can see authority has gone up and up but accountability goes down and down, no one ones benefit that I can see. It thus contravenes a basic tenet of management theory which is that decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level. This hyper managerialism defeats itself and saws off the branch upon which we all sit.
The SPO role was never about “strategic development in the community” and autonomy was always dependant on whether your ACO was easy-going or had a rod stuck up their arse. It’s more accurate to say accountability for probation officers has gone through the roof while autonomy and authority has been heavily reduced.
DeleteCopple's letter to Justin using modern maagement language, i.e. you said but what you meant was, however we don't agree; thank you for your efforts but actually we know better as our input trumps anything you have to say, or: "No idea how you reached your conclusion but it does seem like you need a bit of time off."
ReplyDeletehttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1176294/SFO_Annual_Report_Letter_Final_July__23.pdf
You recommend... As you know, there is already provision in current SFO Procedures
You also recommended we put robust processes in place ... this is in effect a recommendation that we introduce repeat quality assurance ... [we] do not envisage making changes
HMPPS will continue to work closely with your quality assurance inspectors and welcome having input into your review of the SFO standards, which we think will also support quality improvement.
Nothing will change for the better.
"Have a lie down dear, you're not making sense". Justin ‘HMIP’ Russell’s conclusions were consistently complicit in blaming probation staff rather than condemning the antics of the senior leadership teams. His HMIP reports got us more training, more managers and more blame. What we didn’t get was more staff, money, development or recognition for what we do.
DeleteDear Justin
DeleteThank you for sharing your annual report on Serious Further Offences (SFOs), which was published on 15 June and contained recommendations to HMPPS. I am writing to you in response to those recommendations.
As you acknowledged in the annual report, Public Protection Group (PPG) are currently reviewing aspects of the SFO Procedures, and your recommendations have prompted us to undertake a more fundamental review of the model by which SFO reviews are produced and of the resources required. The Probation Workforce Programme have completed a Workload Planning System activity review, which aside from examining the resource requirements of the existing model, also identified some possible process improvements. In parallel to the fundamental review, we are considering how we might implement those process improvements now.
You recommend that SFO reviews, particularly those of the most serious offences, be undertaken by a separate Probation Region and that we consider raising the grade of SFO reviewers, particularly for the most serious or complex cases. As you know, there is already provision in current SFO Procedures for us to allocate a reviewer at a more senior grade and to request another Region complete the report, and we currently use this provision in the most serious or complex cases. However, we will consider options for going further as part of comprehensive review of the SFO Procedures.
You also recommended we put robust processes in place to ensure that, following quality assurance feedback, all required changes to the SFO review document are made timely and to a sufficient standard. This is in effect a recommendation that we introduce repeat quality assurance for all reviews that require improvement, whereas our current approach is to target those reviews which will be shared with victims and to ensure the repeat quality assurance is done in time for the review to be shared with a victim. In the context of available resources, we consider this approach to be proportionate and at this stage do not envisage making changes. However, as we are looking afresh at the SFO Procedures, we will also keep this under review.
The comprehensive review of the SFO procedures will also consider issues of format and countersigning. We agree that the format of the SFO review document needs reviewing, and that robust countersigning is a key element of the Procedures. Similarly, the review will inform improved action planning, ensuring that learning is translated into the most meaningful and impactful actions, feeds into organisational change and is shared with relevant partner agencies where applicable.
HMPPS will continue to work closely with your quality assurance inspectors and welcome having input into your review of the SFO standards, which we think will also support quality improvement.
Yours Sincerely,
PHIL COPPLE
Director General of Operations
Quality improvement and more scrutiny and hoops for frontline staff. The. buck stops with the senior managers but not according to Justin and Phil.
Delete@19:35 highlights what I see @17:03 was saying, that hmpps do what *they* choose, regardless.
DeleteThey use friendly Justin's recommendations when it suits, especially when they can squeeze staff harder; but when their chum suggests *they* make some changes they have no qualms in telling him to fuck off:
"Its okay, we know all about this", finally closing him down completely with "rest assured we'll tell you how we'll improve the quality of everything."
Ah Phil Copple, former lead in NE for NOMS, a prison manager in charge of probation, and that went well! Did someone say where’s the evidence prisons are in charge of probation 11:27 yesterday? That was the writing on the wall when we still had probation trusts…..never heard a peep from him about TR did we? Take a look at those currently at the top table, all are Prison managers or career civil servants. That’s why probation is dying.
ReplyDeletePrison managers should never be probation managers.
DeleteIts been probation-free at the top for decades
DeleteNOMS - The advent of NOMS in 2004 changed the pattern of correctional services delivery in England and Wales.
narey: 1998-2003 DG Prisons; 2004-2005 NOMS
edwards: nacro, home office, 2005-2008 NOMS
wheatley: 1969-2008 Prisons; 2008-2010 NOMS
spurr: 1983-2010 Prisons; 2010-2019 NOMS
farrar: chief of a local authority; 2019-2022 hmpps
rees: Amy started her career in the Prison Service and worked at several establishments including HMP Lewes, High Down and Bristol, before being appointed Governor at HMP Brixton in 2008.
Her previous roles include: Head of Workforce Strategy, where she led a comprehensive restructure of Public Sector Prisons; Deputy Director on the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme, responsible for designing and delivering the organisational restructure of the Probation Services; and Principal Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Justice.
Creation as NOMS
NOMS was created on 1 June 2004 following a review by Patrick Carter (now Lord Carter of Coles), a Labour-supporting businessman. Carter had been asked by the government to propose a way of achieving a better balance between the prison population in England and Wales and the resources available for the correctional services. He proposed three radical changes. Firstly, that there should be 'end-to-end management' of each offender from first contact with the correctional services to full completion of the sentence. Secondly, that there should be a clear division between the commissioners of services and their providers. And thirdly that there should be 'contestability' amongst these providers. By this means, he argued, efficiency would be increased, unit costs reduced, and innovation encouraged. Growth in the prison population, which had increased by two thirds over the previous ten years, would be constrained by giving the courts greater confidence in the effectiveness of community sentences as opposed to prison sentences through better management of offenders, leading to reduced levels of recidivism. The Government accepted these proposals.
Who do we blame?
"Carter was educated at Brentwood School where he was a contemporary of politician Jack Straw. In his autobiography Straw describes Carter as his closest friend."
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100304111703/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/correctional_services.aspx
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES REVIEW
DeleteLast March you asked me to review correctional services in England and Wales.
We found that considerable progress had been made in the way we manage offenders. Over the last seven
years there have been significant improvements in both the Prison Service and the National Probation
Service. However, we now need to find more effective ways of using scarce resources if we are to further
reduce crime.
We have found an urgent need for the different parts of the criminal justice system to work closer together. At its simplest, each part of the system has little regard for the consequences of its actions on the other parts. This means that resources are not always used effectively. Further, few of the players are focused on the overall aim of crime reduction.
You will see in the attached report that we recommend far reaching reforms, which build on recent
improvements and the new sentencing framework set out in the Criminal Justice Act (2003).
It is essential that judges and magistrates have a full range of tough, credible and effective sentences that
are properly enforced. This includes income-related fines for low risk offenders, more demanding
community sentences and greater sanctions for potentially persistent offenders (including satellite tracking).
As now, custody needs to be reserved for the most serious, dangerous and highly persistent offenders.
The judiciary, through the new Sentencing Guidelines Council, needs to ensure that, in the short term,
the most effective use is made of prison and probation capacity. In the medium term, decisions about
building new prisons or expanding community interventions need to be informed by much clearer evidence on what works to reduce crime.
Despite recent improvements, a new approach is needed in order to break down the silos of prison and
probation and ensure a better focus on managing offenders.
To implement these wide ranging reforms significant changes will need to be made. The Report calls
for a new National Offender Management Service (NOMS) responsible for reducing re-offending.
It separates the case management of offenders from the provision of prison places, treatment services
or community programmes (whether they are in the public, private or voluntary sectors).
These reforms will ensure an improved system that works together to punish offenders, whilst ensuring
the best use of resources to reduce crime.
I would like to thank all those who contributed to the Review, particularly Gareth Davies and the
Strategy Unit, the Home Office, the Department of Constitutional Affairs and HM Treasury.
We are grateful to both the Prison Service and the National Probation Service for the insights they offered.
Yours sincerely
Patrick Carter
As a middle manager in YOS, with 15 years experience, I am appalled at the decline of probation,and probation officers in particular . I have witnessed a decline that is disturbing at best and frightening at worst. Who are these new probation officers and where have they come from? I have had many a robust encounter with old school POs that was often thought provoking and made me reflect on my own practice,and it always felt like a professional discourse. In recent times I have been disturbed by the unprofessional attitude and presentation of so called “probation officers” many of which I would never let anywhere near young people. Probation you really have lost your direction and your values.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not the ‘new’ probation officers, the problem is the ‘new’ probation service. It is designed to be far inadequate in comparison to what it once was.
DeleteThe impact of managerialism in the probation service by Sue Wade, deputy chief probation officer Hampshire.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/09627250008552856.pdf
'Getafix
There are managers and there are leaders.
ReplyDeleteWe have many who have that title in the first group but none in the second… Leaders inspire, they lead by example (exemplo ducemus) . Leaders cut through the noise , they see you fail once , they won’t see you fail again.. Managerialism is toxic when that is all that is offered ..: We are where we are because leadership is absent .. Cake baking to celebrate probation day is now being actively promoted to mark our worth. That’s the message from on high: “let them eat cake”.
It really is hard to soar with the eagles when you work for turkeys.
For balance , and also taking ownership of my comments, I would also add:
ReplyDelete“The fault dear Brutus , does not lie in our stars but within ourselves”.
Have a practice discussion with a senior manager.
DeleteGracchus: “Have you ever embraced someone dying of plague, sire?”
Commodus: “No, but if you interrupt me again, I assure you that you will.”