As news comes in of the latest derisory pay offer - with strings of course - anger is spreading within the ranks ahead of the Napo AGM next week and there's serious talk of strike action. We've been here before of course over recent years, but things are a bit different now because many of the traditional 'vocational' cohort have left and been replaced with newer recruits with very different views on the job and their approach and loyalty to it. I saw this yesterday:-
"I don't get this argument, 20 years ago it worked. The world has changed in 20 years, adapt. Sure, the current OFPS is a shambles, but we live in a different world and let's be honest, we treat most criminals like victims and completely ignore actual victims of crime.
Clearly a 2 stage Probation is needed, help those who want help and give longer sentences to the problematic cases who bung up the justice system. Accountability is long gone and we seek to blame anyone but the individual."
I'm increasingly coming to the view that if government will not listen to evidence and argument about the probation service because of the political risks that even Andy Burnham has been persuaded precludes investigation and the previously promised independent Review (The Labour government committed in its 2024 general election manifesto to carry out a strategic review of probation governance and evaluate the benefits of devolved models), then maybe it might only take a catastrophic collapse instead to prompt any action. Even the public are getting tired of the "£700 million" and "1,300 new officers" bullshit responses to all questions because there's a huge hole in the bucket with more staff exiting than arriving.
With all this in mind, lets take a look at what officers were saying 10 years ago in the Guardian. Of course many things have changed, but does anyone seriously think things have improved?
'The job used to have integrity': readers on Britain's probation services
We asked those working in probation services across the UK to tell us how they have been affected since the 2014 privatisation
An official review into the failing performance of the government’s privatisation of the probation service, has been called for by justice secretary Liz Truss.
The probation service was split in 2014 into 21 private community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) and a public National Probation Service (NPS), replacing the former 35 probation trusts. Truss told MPs on Tuesday that the review into the performance of the privatised probation companies would be finished by April and would include measures to improve the service. The announcement came after highly critical reports by the chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, found companies struggled to deliver the supervision of 250,000 offenders a year.
We asked people working in probation services in the UK for their views and experiences. From low morale among staff to excessive case loads, and unsuitable risk assessments, here’s what some of them said.
Working for the publicly owned NPS: ‘Staff have no faith in leadership’
The probation trusts we used to have were rooted in localism and worked closely with partner organisations such as the police, social care and the health service. But all those relationships have been put under strain by the arrogant attitude emanating from Whitehall. Staff still believe in the job they do but have no faith in leadership.
The recent staff survey information indicated that just 3% thought that the NPS had made improvements - I think that says it all. As we’re such a small organisation we won’t get the headlines that problems in the prison service get but if things go wrong with us, the consequences for the public could be even greater.
Neil
‘I suffered burnout and am now on unpaid leave’
Nobody is receiving the service they should and it has become too difficult to do a good job. People are leaving and sickness levels due to stress and depression are high - it is not uncommon for people to cry at their desks.
I have been qualified as an officer for 11 years and have a range of experience, from prison work to managing a team of probation officers. However, I had a period of sick leave due to depression and am now on unpaid leave. Direct line managers and colleagues were generally supportive but despite that I have suffered burnout. I am now travelling around Europe in a motorhome with my children!
Alison
Public protection within the NPS: ‘Staff are inexperienced, inadequately trained and very poorly paid’
We’re supposed to offer a service where high risk offenders (while on licence) are directed to reside in places where they can be monitored before being released into the community, but it’s staffed with people who are inexperienced, inadequately trained and very poorly paid. How does that facilitate public protection?
It’s been awful from the word go but I wanted to stick it out and learn something new. I’d never worked in probation before. However after almost ten years I handed in my resignation on Monday. I’ve learnt a great deal. I’ve really enjoyed the work and helping people change their lives is great. Human behaviour is very interesting and although the public might not understand probation and what it does (which is probation’s fault) all of these offenders have been victims at one time too. Society is very ill. A philosopher once said: ‘Society gets the criminals it deserves,’ and that it does.
Enforcement within a CRC: ‘I have given up trying to defend the indefensible’
We have lost experienced officers who would rather take redundancy than work in a job they are now ashamed of. I prosecute breaches - when anyone bothers to take any action - and am constantly having to try and explain to the courts why offenders have not been seen for months. I have given up trying to defend the indefensible. If victims of crime knew that even the paltry sentences handed down are not even carried out, how do you think they would feel? The government tells us crime is going down (which is nonsense), people just do not even bother to report it.
Taylor
Working in a senior attendance centre for a CRC: ‘I was transferred in 2014 and am yet to have any job specific training’
I have been in my current role for 12 years but directly under government bodies, and was transferred to a CRC in August 2014. My role is predominantly working face to face with low to medium risk service users and ensuring they report regularly to the centre. Myself and other colleagues have yet to have any job specific training other then a few hours being shown a few key things on their database. I have received no training in relation to health and safety. I have very little contact with supervising officers to find out how their service users are complying with their orders, and there are so many probation officers with unsafe case levels to manage.
As for the companies interest or obligation for my welfare, it is practically nonexistent. I have had one appraisal six months after I transferred, and three different line managers! I have now been told that redundancy for me is very likely, as they are attempting to make what was once a thriving sentencing option into a skeleton service.
Sophie
Victim services within a CRC: ‘Victims are lost in the system and the reason why offenders are on probation is forgotten’
If you are a victim of crime you would like to believe that the offender will be held to account and required to complete the sentence set out at court. This is not the case - because we work in a target driven culture. The emphasis is to get the offender through the order so it can be viewed as a successful completion - and to achieve this probation officers are expected to do whatever they can. So in reality there are no national standards, you cannot breach anyone and you can’t recall anyone - offenders rule the service.
Previously an offender could have two missed appointments before they would be in breach and taken back to court now offenders get through their orders hardly setting foot in an office. Telephone calls are now classed as appointments, and any requirements such as programmes are overlooked, if they don’t want to do it then on the whole they don’t have to. We are expected to do anything and overlook everything in order to get a successful completion. The word public protection used to be the core of probation but now it’s not even considered.
The job used to have integrity, but now we are at the mercy of people who don’t actually care about victims or potential victims. Instead they are lost in the system and the very reason why offenders are on probation is forgotten.
Emmy
Working in resettlement in a CRC: ‘Before privatisation I would have been supervised by managers’
I am a probation practitioner which involves risk assessment, and going out to prison wings to interview prisoners for accommodation, benefits, finances, relationships, health and wellbeing, and behaviour. We then action the issues they have, always bearing in mind the risk posed to the public. As you can imagine some prisoners have a multitude of issues. We then have to try and find the allocated officer in the community, which is difficult now as splitting the service has made this a very tiring and arduous task.
Before the split I would have had the support of managers including supervision. Now it is nonexistent and we are expected to run innumerable caseloads. We have to offer the above support services knowing they are not working. We have been de-skilled as officers due to not having support with what we are supposed to be delivering in custody, such as interventions. We are not coping with the changes that the government have imposed and hand-in-hand with the current state of the prison, police and our service, I am fearful of the future. I am afraid for the public given that prisoners are leaving without appropriate services in place, with one of the worst hit areas being mental health. I am very aware of people leaving custody with no support because there is none.
DP
Support from the courts: ‘Clients are released with nothing and appear back in court for food theft’
I work in a criminal court team. I write sentencing reports, cover criminal sentencing courts and provide information to the courts about any current cases. I interview individuals and then provide a proposal for sentence. I am supposed to look at risk levels and ways to reduce reoffending, ways to rehabilitate and ways to keep known persons and the public safe. This is nigh on impossible when we don’t even know what privately run companies are actually providing. Our team has had seven different managers over the last two years. Staff moral is at an all time low.
We basically lie when proposing sentences in our reports. We tell judges and magistrates that particular lines of work will be done when in reality, clients are never seen and go weeks without appointments. Drug and alcohol services are nigh on useless and it takes weeks to set up any type of prescription for them. Clients are released with literally nothing and nowhere to go and then appear back in court for shop theft of food - what a surprise.
Louise
We asked those working in probation services across the UK to tell us how they have been affected since the 2014 privatisation
An official review into the failing performance of the government’s privatisation of the probation service, has been called for by justice secretary Liz Truss.
The probation service was split in 2014 into 21 private community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) and a public National Probation Service (NPS), replacing the former 35 probation trusts. Truss told MPs on Tuesday that the review into the performance of the privatised probation companies would be finished by April and would include measures to improve the service. The announcement came after highly critical reports by the chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, found companies struggled to deliver the supervision of 250,000 offenders a year.
We asked people working in probation services in the UK for their views and experiences. From low morale among staff to excessive case loads, and unsuitable risk assessments, here’s what some of them said.
Working for the publicly owned NPS: ‘Staff have no faith in leadership’
The probation trusts we used to have were rooted in localism and worked closely with partner organisations such as the police, social care and the health service. But all those relationships have been put under strain by the arrogant attitude emanating from Whitehall. Staff still believe in the job they do but have no faith in leadership.
The recent staff survey information indicated that just 3% thought that the NPS had made improvements - I think that says it all. As we’re such a small organisation we won’t get the headlines that problems in the prison service get but if things go wrong with us, the consequences for the public could be even greater.
Neil
‘I suffered burnout and am now on unpaid leave’
Nobody is receiving the service they should and it has become too difficult to do a good job. People are leaving and sickness levels due to stress and depression are high - it is not uncommon for people to cry at their desks.
I have been qualified as an officer for 11 years and have a range of experience, from prison work to managing a team of probation officers. However, I had a period of sick leave due to depression and am now on unpaid leave. Direct line managers and colleagues were generally supportive but despite that I have suffered burnout. I am now travelling around Europe in a motorhome with my children!
Alison
Public protection within the NPS: ‘Staff are inexperienced, inadequately trained and very poorly paid’
We’re supposed to offer a service where high risk offenders (while on licence) are directed to reside in places where they can be monitored before being released into the community, but it’s staffed with people who are inexperienced, inadequately trained and very poorly paid. How does that facilitate public protection?
It’s been awful from the word go but I wanted to stick it out and learn something new. I’d never worked in probation before. However after almost ten years I handed in my resignation on Monday. I’ve learnt a great deal. I’ve really enjoyed the work and helping people change their lives is great. Human behaviour is very interesting and although the public might not understand probation and what it does (which is probation’s fault) all of these offenders have been victims at one time too. Society is very ill. A philosopher once said: ‘Society gets the criminals it deserves,’ and that it does.
Simone
‘Excessive case loads are putting public protection at risk’
I have been a probation officer for 11 years and supervise male offenders predominately for domestic violence offences. Before privatisation I worked in a team of 11 and had a case load of between 40-50 offenders. Now I am in a team of 7 and have a caseload of 70.
I am supposed to assess their risk and compile a community sentence plan (this is where we look at the needs of the offender and work to improve their situation whilst reducing their risk. For example someone who becomes violent when drunk will need alcohol intervention as well as help addressing the reasoning behind violence such as power and control, or anger management). In the current political climate many offenders have mental health issues and there is no longer any provision for this issue as the CRC has disbanded the mental health cohort. We also find many of our clients have housing issues and benefit sanctions.
Before privatisation we used to see offenders weekly for a minimum of 16 weeks and each session would last at least a minimum of an hour. In doing so we would build a positive rapport and a thorough analysis of the offender, their needs and their risk. Now we have too many offenders and not enough time. I see my offenders on average for 20 minutes once a month. There is no minimum requirement and our managers encourage us constantly to see them less and sign post them more which is a false fallacy as community services are scarce and stretched.
Public protection is at risk here with excessive case loads but no one is monitoring this and managers do not care. We are robustly managed to hit targets but are totally missing the point. I want to resign. My job has become a tick box exercise. The people I see are damaged and often dangerous, with violent backgrounds or mental health issues and need support.
David
Custody within a CRC: ‘There have been a number of totally inaccurate and inappropriate risk assessments’
I’m a custody probation officer and my job is effectively the ‘motto’ of probation: protect the public, rehabilitate the offender, and enforce the law. Public protection means assessing the risks (of harm and re-offender) of any particular prisoner. Rehabilitate the offender (ideally) means ensuring they receive the most appropriate work to address their offending. Enforce the law means ensuring an offender (whether on a community order or on a prison licence) abided to his or her conditions.
Prison officers are few and far between, so we have to find one who has time and energy to unlock a prisoner so we can do some work. In the past, a prisoner making a request would have it dealt with appropriately. These days, I could receive umpteen emails, phone calls or being collared while out and about the prison, to tell me a prisoner needed to speak to me.
With regards to CRCs - half the time we don’t have up-to-date contact information, so cannot phone or email an outside officer for whatever reason. There have been a number of totally inaccurate and inappropriate risk assessments.
Lots of people who do front-line work are having long periods of sick leave. If these stressed people stay in their jobs, they’re not going to be as effective as they should be, or once were. The whole system is collapsing and we’re just letting it happen.
Nemo
‘Excessive case loads are putting public protection at risk’
I have been a probation officer for 11 years and supervise male offenders predominately for domestic violence offences. Before privatisation I worked in a team of 11 and had a case load of between 40-50 offenders. Now I am in a team of 7 and have a caseload of 70.
I am supposed to assess their risk and compile a community sentence plan (this is where we look at the needs of the offender and work to improve their situation whilst reducing their risk. For example someone who becomes violent when drunk will need alcohol intervention as well as help addressing the reasoning behind violence such as power and control, or anger management). In the current political climate many offenders have mental health issues and there is no longer any provision for this issue as the CRC has disbanded the mental health cohort. We also find many of our clients have housing issues and benefit sanctions.
Before privatisation we used to see offenders weekly for a minimum of 16 weeks and each session would last at least a minimum of an hour. In doing so we would build a positive rapport and a thorough analysis of the offender, their needs and their risk. Now we have too many offenders and not enough time. I see my offenders on average for 20 minutes once a month. There is no minimum requirement and our managers encourage us constantly to see them less and sign post them more which is a false fallacy as community services are scarce and stretched.
Public protection is at risk here with excessive case loads but no one is monitoring this and managers do not care. We are robustly managed to hit targets but are totally missing the point. I want to resign. My job has become a tick box exercise. The people I see are damaged and often dangerous, with violent backgrounds or mental health issues and need support.
David
Custody within a CRC: ‘There have been a number of totally inaccurate and inappropriate risk assessments’
I’m a custody probation officer and my job is effectively the ‘motto’ of probation: protect the public, rehabilitate the offender, and enforce the law. Public protection means assessing the risks (of harm and re-offender) of any particular prisoner. Rehabilitate the offender (ideally) means ensuring they receive the most appropriate work to address their offending. Enforce the law means ensuring an offender (whether on a community order or on a prison licence) abided to his or her conditions.
Prison officers are few and far between, so we have to find one who has time and energy to unlock a prisoner so we can do some work. In the past, a prisoner making a request would have it dealt with appropriately. These days, I could receive umpteen emails, phone calls or being collared while out and about the prison, to tell me a prisoner needed to speak to me.
With regards to CRCs - half the time we don’t have up-to-date contact information, so cannot phone or email an outside officer for whatever reason. There have been a number of totally inaccurate and inappropriate risk assessments.
Lots of people who do front-line work are having long periods of sick leave. If these stressed people stay in their jobs, they’re not going to be as effective as they should be, or once were. The whole system is collapsing and we’re just letting it happen.
Nemo
Enforcement within a CRC: ‘I have given up trying to defend the indefensible’
We have lost experienced officers who would rather take redundancy than work in a job they are now ashamed of. I prosecute breaches - when anyone bothers to take any action - and am constantly having to try and explain to the courts why offenders have not been seen for months. I have given up trying to defend the indefensible. If victims of crime knew that even the paltry sentences handed down are not even carried out, how do you think they would feel? The government tells us crime is going down (which is nonsense), people just do not even bother to report it.
Taylor
Working in a senior attendance centre for a CRC: ‘I was transferred in 2014 and am yet to have any job specific training’
I have been in my current role for 12 years but directly under government bodies, and was transferred to a CRC in August 2014. My role is predominantly working face to face with low to medium risk service users and ensuring they report regularly to the centre. Myself and other colleagues have yet to have any job specific training other then a few hours being shown a few key things on their database. I have received no training in relation to health and safety. I have very little contact with supervising officers to find out how their service users are complying with their orders, and there are so many probation officers with unsafe case levels to manage.
As for the companies interest or obligation for my welfare, it is practically nonexistent. I have had one appraisal six months after I transferred, and three different line managers! I have now been told that redundancy for me is very likely, as they are attempting to make what was once a thriving sentencing option into a skeleton service.
Sophie
Victim services within a CRC: ‘Victims are lost in the system and the reason why offenders are on probation is forgotten’
If you are a victim of crime you would like to believe that the offender will be held to account and required to complete the sentence set out at court. This is not the case - because we work in a target driven culture. The emphasis is to get the offender through the order so it can be viewed as a successful completion - and to achieve this probation officers are expected to do whatever they can. So in reality there are no national standards, you cannot breach anyone and you can’t recall anyone - offenders rule the service.
Previously an offender could have two missed appointments before they would be in breach and taken back to court now offenders get through their orders hardly setting foot in an office. Telephone calls are now classed as appointments, and any requirements such as programmes are overlooked, if they don’t want to do it then on the whole they don’t have to. We are expected to do anything and overlook everything in order to get a successful completion. The word public protection used to be the core of probation but now it’s not even considered.
The job used to have integrity, but now we are at the mercy of people who don’t actually care about victims or potential victims. Instead they are lost in the system and the very reason why offenders are on probation is forgotten.
Emmy
Working in resettlement in a CRC: ‘Before privatisation I would have been supervised by managers’
I am a probation practitioner which involves risk assessment, and going out to prison wings to interview prisoners for accommodation, benefits, finances, relationships, health and wellbeing, and behaviour. We then action the issues they have, always bearing in mind the risk posed to the public. As you can imagine some prisoners have a multitude of issues. We then have to try and find the allocated officer in the community, which is difficult now as splitting the service has made this a very tiring and arduous task.
Before the split I would have had the support of managers including supervision. Now it is nonexistent and we are expected to run innumerable caseloads. We have to offer the above support services knowing they are not working. We have been de-skilled as officers due to not having support with what we are supposed to be delivering in custody, such as interventions. We are not coping with the changes that the government have imposed and hand-in-hand with the current state of the prison, police and our service, I am fearful of the future. I am afraid for the public given that prisoners are leaving without appropriate services in place, with one of the worst hit areas being mental health. I am very aware of people leaving custody with no support because there is none.
DP
Support from the courts: ‘Clients are released with nothing and appear back in court for food theft’
I work in a criminal court team. I write sentencing reports, cover criminal sentencing courts and provide information to the courts about any current cases. I interview individuals and then provide a proposal for sentence. I am supposed to look at risk levels and ways to reduce reoffending, ways to rehabilitate and ways to keep known persons and the public safe. This is nigh on impossible when we don’t even know what privately run companies are actually providing. Our team has had seven different managers over the last two years. Staff moral is at an all time low.
We basically lie when proposing sentences in our reports. We tell judges and magistrates that particular lines of work will be done when in reality, clients are never seen and go weeks without appointments. Drug and alcohol services are nigh on useless and it takes weeks to set up any type of prescription for them. Clients are released with literally nothing and nowhere to go and then appear back in court for shop theft of food - what a surprise.
Louise
We are at a significant turning point in the history of probation, which way will we go? One way shackles us to the civil service forever while the other sends the clear message that we are indeed worth 12% (should have been 15) and are a small but necessary force to deal with……..without us the early release scheme is dead in the water……..politicians think about one thing……their own job………..time they were pushed…..
ReplyDeleteI have today emailed my ownMP to ask them to lay an urgent PMQ on Wednesday about how the Minister/Ministers intends to resolve this dispute given the 2nd Tranche of releases next week. I accept that probably nothing will come of this but if there are sufficiency of numbers who email their own MP’s over the weekend and given the ballot and Napo;’s Conference next week, who knows what is possible . A debate maybe or questions about the Manifesto Commitment to a Probation Review iangould5
ReplyDeleteTR was an Act of vandalism based on ideology
ReplyDeleteSo, the probation service is to be privatised, or in modern parlance "outsourced". This is nothing more than an act of vandalism based on ideology. These proposals are the work of vandals because they create another fracture in the social contract between citizen and state. The probation service is entrusted with both protecting the public and rehabilitating the offender. This is no easy task but it is critically important to the proper treatment of offenders in our society. Balancing these demands requires an acknowledgment of the rights of victims and the need for protection while at the same time acknowledging the rights of the offender and providing the offender with opportunities for rehabilitation so they can lead a non-offending life.
The breaking of the social contract by replacing the current motives for intervention – proper punishment, rehabilitation, respect for the individual and a belief in the capacity of individuals to change – with motives for intervention driven by profit and payment by results, removes the bond of trust between the public and the probation service that has been in existence for the past 100 years. The loss of this bond of trust between citizen and state can only result in a more oppressive, harsh and less-just criminal justice system.
Jon Spencer
Senior lecturer in criminal justice, School of Law, University of Manchester
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/09/act-vandalism-based-ideology
I also note this in response to the news:-
DeleteThe plans announced by justice secretary Chris Grayling are concerning (Private firms to take over bulk of the probation service, 9 January). Although high-risk cases would remain in the public sector, medium to low risk of harm cases can include violence against a person, child protection issues and domestic violence cases. This group also includes offenders at high risk of reoffending, such as prolific burglars, chaotic drug users and gang members. These are all complex and potentially dangerous individuals who require professional expertise in their management which the probation service possesses.
As around a quarter of all offenders' risk changes during the course of their sentence, there will be a significant movement of cases between the public sector and new providers, increasing the number of handovers while reducing clear accountability. The Probation Chiefs Association has significant concerns that this, combined with the pace with which the government intends to implement these reforms, could end up compromising public safety.
Sarah Billiald
Probation Chiefs Association
JB - i'm fairly certain that the phrase "act of vandalism based on ideology" was first coined by one of your contributors to this blog.
DeleteProbation Three Rs
ReplyDeleteProbation just needs to shift and refocus itself with the Probation Three Rs: Rehabilitation, Reintegration, Reparation. As an “agency of justice”, it must prioritise this. It doesn’t need to be punitive, and needs to stop being used as the solution to every problem in the Criminal Justice System.
* Rehabilitation: Recognising human capacity for change and fostering belief (and facilitating) in every individual’s ability to change.
* Reintegration: Encouraging and enabling inclusion within society rather than isolation.
* Reparation: Supporting individuals in taking accountability for their actions and making meaningful amends.
It’s not brain science! The Probation Three Rs framework—promoted by criminal justice theorists such as Fergus McNeill.
https://www.probation.ie/EN/PB/0/12C23D73A2D1A5E1802580340041331A/$File/IPJ2009MCNEILL.pdf
Another type of Three Rs - behind bars!
Deletenews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3246012.stm
From 13 years ago:-
DeleteThree Rs behind bars
Prisoners who pick up reading and writing skills are far less likely to offend. So why is education scrimped on as offenders make the transition from custody to society?
HMP Latchmere House, in south-west London, helps ease offenders back into community life. This is helped by finding inmates part-time employment ahead of their release.
But when a group of prisoners went to work on a local building project, the site manager was shocked to discover that a number were unable to read the health and safety notices. End of employment contract - and yet another example of the appallingly low level of basic skills among the UK's offender population.
The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, says in a report released on Friday that Latchmere needs to do more to prepare offenders for work - she criticised a new education contract as being "seriously under funded" for the task.
Ironically, the Prison Service has achieved much in trying to tackle literacy and numeracy and address handicaps such as dyslexia. It's a remarkable fact that one in 10 of all adults in England and Wales who improved their basic skills last year did so from behind bars. The trick now is to make the same impact on offenders in the community.
Crime and punishment
"We're starting from a long way back," says the Commissioner for Correctional Services, Martin Narey. "This year, prisoners will get 50,000 basic skills accreditations. For offenders on community programmes, the comparable figure was 800 last year, with a target of 4,000 this."
One of the problems has been the courts. Magistrates and judges are still too wedded to the idea that a short dose of custody is not only salutary but can help tackle the roots of offending behaviour. There is a reluctance to accept that a similar turn-around can be achieved on probation-supervised community punishment orders.
Another problem has been the probation service itself. Until recently, financial incentives have been offered to areas pushing a high number of offenders through programmes connected to drug treatment orders, but not to improving basic skills.
That imbalance has now been corrected and, backed by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and £10m of new money, there is an all-out drive to get offenders in the community into the classroom.
In one such room in a probation building in Croydon, seven offenders are sitting around a table or in front of computer terminals. Several want to improve their reading so they can take the driving theory test. Since their crimes were driving-related, this could be of great practical benefit.
Late bloomers
DeleteIn one such room in a probation building in Croydon, seven offenders are sitting around a table or in front of computer terminals. Several want to improve their reading so they can take the driving theory test. Since their crimes were driving-related, this could be of great practical benefit.
Clive Diedrick, out on licence having served half of a six-year sentence for possession of heroin, is tapping away confidently at a keyboard, despite his dyslexia. This handicap wasn't diagnosed until the start of his sentence - at the age of 43.
"I often wonder what I might have achieved if my dyslexia had been spotted earlier," he says. "From school on, I was labelled as a non-achiever and even when I've worked, it's always been a dead-end job."
Given that having a job is shown to halve the chances of offending, the link with crime is obvious for all to see.
The post of commissioner for correctional services is a new one and reflects the government's view that too large a gap exists between the prison and probation services.
Basic skills are a case in point. Too often, when an inmate leaves jail, he or she leaves behind whatever portfolio of work has been done during a sentence. It can be very disheartening.
"You can be given just a few days notice of release on home detention curfew [tagging] and the last thing on your mind is your portfolio," says Diedrick. "But later, looking back, you realise it may be the most concrete achievement of your time inside and it's probably been thrown out with the rubbish."
The Billiald letter was 13 years ago... the beeb piece was from 2003, some 23 years ago... but however many years later the prison service are still failing to educate prisoners in any meaningful way except, perhaps, how to improve & expand their networks of criminally active associates. Every prison inspection has highlighted the lack of, the failure of or the absence of 'basic' education; so there's little to no chance of any resource for assessing/addressing dyslexia, adhd or other neurodivergent conditions.
Delete"One of the problems has been the courts. Magistrates and judges are still too wedded to the idea that a short dose of custody is not only salutary but can help tackle the roots of offending behaviour."
They've only been enacting what successive governments have told them to do.
"Another problem has been the probation service itself. Until recently, financial incentives have been offered to areas pushing a high number of offenders through programmes connected to drug treatment orders, but not to improving basic skills."
They've only been expediting what successive governments funded them to do.
"That imbalance has now been corrected and, backed by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and £10m of new money... Commissioner for Correctional Services, Martin Narey. "This year, prisoners will get 50,000 basic skills accreditations..." "
It was the the "£700million & 1300 new recruits" bollox of 2003.
It’d be good if they made up their mind about recruitment. Is it too simple to say, increase the starting salary, widen the qualification baxk into social work, and relax vetting to enable those with lived experience to successfully apply?
Delete2019 - 1000 vacancies https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/12/chris-grayling-probation-reforms-serious-crimes-committed-on-parole-soar
2020 - 1000 to be recruited including ex-offenders https://insidetime.org/comment/prisoners-today-professionals-tomorrow/
2021 - 1000 probation officers recruited https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-thousand-probation-officers-recruited-to-protect-the-public
2022 - 1500 new probation officers https://www.gov.uk/government/news/1-500-new-probation-officers-to-protect-the-public
2023 - some progress on staffing says Russell Webster https://www.russellwebster.com/some-progress-on-prison-and-probation-staffing/
2024 - another 1000 trainees https://www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/prisons-crisis-probation-service-to-get-1000-extra-trainee-officers
2025 - 10,000 still to go https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7yj0gkl3zo
2026 - still in crisis https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/probation-service-recruitment-target-reached-5HjdXH4_2/
2026 - recruit 1300 probation officers https://insidetime.org/newsround/ministers-launch-of-probation-recruitment-drive-announced-after-he-quit/
“A major recruitment drive for new probation officers was launched in the name of Prisons and Probation Minister Lord Timpson on the day he stepped down from the job. He was quoted as saying: “Probation officers play a vital and often-overlooked role at the heart of our justice system.”
McNeill's paper referred to at 08:34 is interesting for several reasons including these concluding paragraphs:-
ReplyDeleteI worry that under the rubric of public protection and risk, probation risks losing sight of the obligation to try to maintain some kind of balance between these purposes and these constituencies. When public protection is too dominant, probation services find themselves requiring something of the offender but with less recognition of the obligations that flow in the other direction. I understand very well the lure of recasting rehabilitation as risk management and protection; I can see why it seems to make sense to probation services to try to reconstruct their business around making a contribution to public protection when we live in an age of insecurity. Maybe making good to offenders does not have much cachet or cannot seem to attract much public or political support in these conditions. But, as I have argued elsewhere, there is a paradox with protection and there are risks with risk. The paradox is that the more that probation promises to protect, the more vulnerable the public will feel; the promise to protect us confirms the existence of a threat to us. Even an exceptionally effective probation service will sometimes have to deal with serious further offences, and when it does its credibility as an agent of protection will be too easily dismantled. The political dangers of this position have become obvious in the wake of recent events in England.
But there is also an ethical problem with the dominance of public protection. When probation accepts the lure of risk management and public protection, it preoccupies itself with things that may happen, with the offender’s future behaviour, with potential victims and with the future impacts on communities. I think there is a danger that the more that we preoccupy ourselves with these imaginaries, the less we concern ourselves with the real victims and real offenders and real communities that are with us now. For all of those reasons I am attracted to the idea of reconfiguring rehabilitation with a reparative focus – I can even live with the word ‘payback’. But I can only buy into reparation if it is a twoway street; otherwise, to me it seems morally bankrupt.
Napo says No to 5% offer and urges members to say yes to industrial action
ReplyDeleteThe employer has offered members 5% on all pay points and allowances
The future of CBF in question as part of the deal
PNC reject the offer on the grounds that it’s not enough pay and members are being asked to sacrifice their terms and conditions
Napo is urging all members to vote for action in the upcoming industrial action ballot on pay and workloads launching 19 October
Pay talks have ended with a 5% award being put forward by HMPPS as their “best and final” offer… and it comes with a hefty condition.
Not only did they stall and miss our 11 September deadline, but they also now want you to accept less than the 6% you received last time while putting future pay progression – for those eligible – at risk.
Your PNC has said absolutely not and is standing firm on an industrial action ballot that will launch 19 October.
What’s the issue
For starters, this delayed offer falls well short of our initial 12% pay claim.
HMPPS has offered less than the deal secured last time when members stood together and made their voices heard through the ballot box. We know what collective action can achieve. Why should we settle for less now?
We were not asking for too much. We were asking to catch up to comparable sectors.
You’ll see narrative floating around that this offer is more than Local Government, Prisons, NHS and the Police are receiving this year, but that’s only right. They have had a massive head start and all we are asking for is to close the gap.
This table – created by two members of our West Yorkshire Branch – illustrates how far Probation pay has fallen against inflation since 2010.Pay chart.png
Probation staff keep the criminal justice system moving. You support people and protect the public through some of the most challenging circumstances and absorb the consequences of decisions made elsewhere in the system. From repeated early release schemes to the growing demands placed on frontline services from the Sentencing Act, the pressure keeps mounting.
But when it comes to recognising your contribution in your pay packet, the employer still falls short. Your skills, qualifications, responsibilities and the work you do to keep the public safe deserve better than this.
And the 5% figure is only part of the problem.
They want to give with one hand and take away with the other
The employer has attached a condition requiring “…a firm commitment that successor arrangements (to be negotiated) for CBF will begin to be implemented from 1 April 2027 onwards. Whilst details will need to be worked through with you, new arrangements will need to reduce or remove the impact of CBF on pay progression from 1 April 2027.”.
Let’s be clear about what that means. HMPPS wants a commitment to change an existing term and condition on a fixed timetable, before the detail of any replacement has been properly negotiated and agreed.
We have been here before. Competence Based Framework (CBF) has been the carrot dangled in front of Probation staff time and again during pay negotiations. We have seen how these promises play out. We are not prepared to let members be fobbed off with another promise that may never deliver what they need.
DeleteThe employer may be committed to introducing a successor to CBF. But who knows what that system will look like, how it will work, or whether it will leave you better off? Where are the guarantees that it will protect your interests rather than undermine them?
Members who have not reached the top of their pay band have every reason to be concerned. Agreeing to this offer risks sacrificing a term and condition in exchange for something that has yet to be properly negotiated. There is no guarantee that a suitable replacement, that is fair, will be in place.
Napo will not ask you to take that gamble. We will not tell you to accept a deal that puts you at risk and cross your fingers that something better might turn up.
If CBF is to change, negotiations must be open and genuine, and any successor arrangements must work in members’ interests. We will not sign away your protections on the strength of an employer promise. Napo is not that kind of union.
We will also point out when the employer is trying to inflate the offer.
This pay offer does not include CBF payments for 2026/27
As we saw with last year’s pay offers, we believe the employer will try to artificially inflate their offer for 2026/27 by including in any progression payments under CBF into their calculations. Napo maintain our position in rejecting this misleading and divisive approach and will continue to be honest with our members about the actual value of the pay offer. View-the-employers-pay-offer-tables
We know what we need to do next
Last time, members had something to gain by standing together and fighting for better pay. This time, there is something else at stake: the protection of your terms and conditions.
That makes this fight even more important.
As the largest trade union representing Probation staff, Napo takes its responsibility to protect members’ interests seriously. Our PNC has considered the offer and reached its decision. We will not recommend a deal that fails to deliver fair pay and asks members to accept unnecessary uncertainty over their future earnings. Today, we demonstrate our intent by serving notice of a Trade Dispute on Pay as part of a necessary legal step to an industrial action ballot.
On Tuesday 13 October at 1pm, we will hold an all-members pre-ballot meeting to explain the offer, set out what is at stake and prepare for the ballot.
From the week beginning 19 October, Napo will launch a formal electronic ballot on industrial action covering both pay and workloads.
This is our opportunity to show HMPPS that we will not be ignored, underpaid or expected to surrender hard-won terms and conditions for promises that may never materialise.
We stood together last time. We won’t settle for less this time.
And let’s not forget the late Professor Paul Senior. I doubt there was any other more public critic of TR.
ReplyDeleteThe former probation officer, academic, and co-founder and co-editor of the British Journal of Community Justice dedicated a double edition to criticising TR, invited practitioners, academics and clients to submit papers, and then made the journal open access too.
The same year he had delivered his famous Bill McWilliams Memorial Lecture on June 27, 2013, titled Privatising Probation: The Death Knell of a Much-Cherished Public Service?
Transforming Rehabilitation Under the Microscope
BJCJ (Volume 11: Issue 2–3), 11 December 2013
https://mmuperu.co.uk/bjcj/volumes/bjcj-volume-11-issue-2-3/
Privatising Probation: The Death Knell of a Much-Cherished Public Service?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O26l_ZT0qyc&ra=m
Put this in perspective. Imagine the Probation Journal, the Probation Institute or any justice journal for that matter dedicating an entire open-access double edition of their publications to actively criticising the sentencing act and progression model, then the editors doing the Bill McWilliams lecture to reinforce every single point.
DeleteRemembering Paul Senior
DeleteAt a time when we once again find ourselves embroiled in a struggle to keep the probation ethos alive, the profession is without a high profile champion. In the summer we lost Paul Senior …
https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2019/09/remembering-paul-senior.html?m=1
Yes Paul Senior is very much missed and that double BJCJ edition was brilliant - his Editorial stretched to 7 pages! it began:-
DeleteDuring the five hour, often high-quality, debate in Parliament on 12th November it was hard to see disagreement on the key features of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) - reducing re-offending, supervision and support for under 12 month offenders, peer mentoring, specific services to women, prisoners resettled in prisons near to their homes, involvement of the private and voluntary sector, and the potential for innovative solutions to the problems of crime in communities. Most of the prescriptions for change, probation commentators and the Trusts themselves would support - and have in the past endorsed - and they are backed by persuasive and rich research evidence, some of which is presented in this timely double issue of the journal. However, nearly all the specific mechanisms and organisational arrangements proposed by government in its TR proposals, are not backed by evidence and moreover fly in the face of that evidence. The cacophony of noise now being heard across the country surely cannot be ignored. A pause, a rethink, even an abandonment of the current TR competition must be put in place to avoid a potential disaster, given the threat to public safety predicted by the rushed application of the current plans. To dismantle a century-old, high performing, probation service is policybased evidence not evidence-based policy.
The job used to have integrity - Part 324:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjx23yxwe73qo
"The Metropolitan Police has fired the head of its Special Constabulary after Palantir's AI monitoring uncovered that he had used his work phone to copy intimate images of a woman.
Special chief officer James Deller, who led the force's volunteer officers, was dismissed following a misconduct hearing on Friday."
And so, as much as ai may be useful at times, its also a dangerous phenomenon:
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqkg50j1yd5lo
"An artificial intelligence (AI) agent, developed by Anthropic, went rogue and sent US police a fake tip about an unsolved murder earlier this year, authorities have revealed... the bogus tip came through a public website where people can share information on unsolved murders, and that the AI agent had written that it may have information on a case, and claimed to have seen "someone matching the description"... It is believed to be the first time an AI agent has sent fabricated information to authorities..."
Has our great Cheerleader the Chief Probation Officer of England and Wales commented upon our struggle or is she awaiting her gong from her friends in the Civil Service…….and doesn’t want to rock the boat………..
ReplyDelete