The Need For Probation Reform

Yesterday's spirited discussion of OASys confirms in my mind the almost complete disregard and contempt the thing is still held in throughout the probation service and indeed well beyond. How it came about, was imposed upon us and is still outrageously consuming vast quantities of practitioner time to virtually no effect whatsoever some twenty years on should be a cause of great shame and embarrassment to all. 

But that's just so typical of what happens as a result of centralised bureaucratic control in the form of HMPPS. If anything of use can be salvaged from the wreck probation has become under civil service direct command and control, a way must be found to get it out of their grip and back to local control and operation, free from the toxic influence of HM Prison Service.

Having got that off my chest, here is a blog from charity Revolving Doors confirming just how necessary proper probation reform is:-   

Presumption success is dependent on probation reforms

Revolving Doors’ Policy Manager Kelly Grehan spent 20 years working as a probation officer. She explains why the recent proposed presumption against short sentences will have limited success without reforms to a struggling Probation Service.

In my twenty years as a probation officer, I saw the damaging effects of short prison sentences. Instead of deterring crime, these sentences often entangle individuals in a cycle of crime and chaos, depriving them of housing, employment, and vital support services for substance use and mental health issues. The BBC’s recent drama Time poignantly illustrates this: a minor crime escalates into life-altering consequences, spurring further offences, trajectories I have encountered throughout my career.

As part of a wider package of measures to address the crisis of prison overcrowding, the Government are proposing a presumption against short sentences. This is a welcome move which we have long called for. However, I hold grave concerns about the severely depleted Probation Service’s ability to supervise individuals effectively without setting them up for failure. Over recent decades, poor legislation has seen the Probation Service go from being a service which prioritised rehabilitation and resettlement to one consumed by risk management and little else.

It is a fact of life that people leading chaotic lives miss appointments – often for reasons that are aligned to why they are in the criminal justice system in the first place. Sometimes they cannot afford travel to their appointments – a growing problem in a cost-of-living crisis, with Probation Centres now more spread out as lots of buildings have closed and been amalgamated. Others have neurodiversity issues, problematic drug and alcohol use or mental health issues. These are all things that make compliance with orders difficult. Around 5,000 people on community orders are also homeless.

Traditionally, Probation Officers had a lot of discretion about breaching people. There was some room for understanding when people missed appointments. But, as the service, which was originally set up to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ those who had committed offences has become more risk averse, the service has seen recall and breach become the default position – not necessarily for new offences but for other breaches of the expectations of their Orders.

In 1993, fewer than 100 people were in prison following recall. By 2023, over 12,000 were. At the same time the number of people sentenced to Community Sentences has plummeted. This is widely thought to be down to sentencers losing faith in them, post Chris Grayling’s part privatisation of the Probation Service in 2014. Although the Service was re-amalgamated in 2021 it has continued to perform badly – only one area has received a ‘good’ grade from the Probation Inspectorate since the Service came fully back into government control.

This week, talking about his plans for a presumption against short sentences, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Alex Chalk told the Telegraph non-compliance would not be tolerated, saying

“You breach court orders at your peril. And if you do so, you can expect no mercy... they have a very clear choice, comply, or go to prison.”

All evidence shows that what people who are trapped in the revolving door need is help and support to address the causal factors of their offending. Seeing attendance at appointments as the only measure of success, as the Minister’s new measures seem to, is destined for difficulty.

It does not need to be like this. Over 15 years ago I was a Probation Officer supervising Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs). These were Orders given to people whose problems with drugs was linked to their offending. Everyone on the Order had twice weekly drug testing – but crucially failing a drug test was not linked to any punitive measures. Testing people twice a week, separate to my supervision session with them meant I got to know the people I supervised and could support them, alongside a local drug project. A doctor and Nurse also joined the Probation team, providing prescriptions and helping people get access to treatment to address their wider health needs.

In short – this was a holistic, treatment- based approach to dealing with drug-related offending. Significantly those on the Order returned to Court regularly for Reviews – often reserved to the Judge who sentenced them. Showing the progress, they were making to the Court was hugely motivating for those on the Order. The reviews also gave judges an insight into the challenges of recovery.

Of course, those on the Order often missed appointments, vanished for several weeks and/or relapsed. However, this was seen in the context of their recovery journey. The order generally continued, often to changed behaviour. It is hard to imagine such an Order being used now.

I worry that nothing has been learnt from the disaster that is Post Sentence Supervision (PSS). Under changes introduced in 2015, anyone leaving custody who has served two days, or more is required to be supervised in the community for a minimum of 12 months. Previously they would have had no involvement with the Probation Service. This move has had a devastating effect on prison numbers. 8,357 people serving a sentence of less than 12 months were recalled to prison in the year to December 2022. Many of these are for non-compliance, rather than new offences. Far from PSS offering people a way out of offending it has trapped many in the revolving door, whilst burdening Probation Officers with extra workload, seemingly to little benefit for those on the sentence or society at large.

I had hoped that the negative impacts of the Post Sentence Supervision might underscore the need for a re-evaluation of the purpose and effectiveness of our current approach. But it seems this was naïve.

At some point we need to stop and reassess what Probation is for. Rebranding efforts to project Community Orders as stringent measures have inadvertently transformed Probation into a predominantly punitive agency, leaving overburdened staff entangled in administrative tasks rather than providing essential support to those under supervision.

If we are ever to end the revolving door of crisis and crime, we need to look at solving its causes. I hope the Minister’s words in The Telegraph are simply part of an effort to look tough, and that some evidenced based support systems will finally be reintroduced to those subject to Community Orders. That is how we will end the revolving door of crisis and crime.

Kelly Grehan

Profile

Kelly is our Policy Manager. She works to coordinate our influencing and communications relating to policing and diversion, sentencing and probation, resettlement, multiple disadvantage, and systems change.

Before joining Revolving Doors, Kelly spent nearly two decades working for the Probation Service, before working for Members of Parliament in the House of commons. She has also led on work on Women and Justice in the Fabian Women’s Network.

Outside of work Kelly is a councillor, charity trustee and runs a small community organisation. She also spends far too much time listening to podcasts, trying to read books and has a secret love of the TV show Neighbours.

“I love the fact Revolving Doors works with people with lived experience to bring systemic change. Having worked on the frontline with those going through the justice system and having experienced frustration with the way the system is set up I feel very privileged to be able to work with our members to ensure their voices are heard.”

Walking a Tightrope

Judging by this report from Shelter, they had a good TR, but it's clear there's a price to pay when you get into bed with government:-

Transforming Rehabilitation: Impact and Lessons Learned

At Shelter, we have been working with the justice sector for over 15 years. Housing support to people transitioning out of the criminal justice sector is essential, both to their successful rehabilitation and to tackling the housing emergency. We provide a range of services, including help to find or maintain accommodation, as well as finance, benefits and debt support.

Over the course of the delivery of the Transforming Rehabilitation contracts from May 2015 to June 2021, we have made a real impact. We helped a total of 51,800 people in custody and in the community with their accommodation, finance, benefit and debt need. We achieved positive outcomes for 89% of the people we supported*. Furthermore, several HMIP/HMPPS inspections commended and recognised our services.

Here are some of the lessons learned:

Building strong relationships

Successful contract delivery relies as much on developing good contract management relationships and partnerships as it does on performance. As the contracts evolved, we benefited from a closer alignment of service delivery with Shelter’s housing expertise, more joined-up working with probation and prisons and more effective use of volunteers to support and add value to service delivery. As a result, we were able to focus more on the outcomes for individuals rather than meeting volume targets.

Influencing commissioners to help shape policy

Having a direct relationship with commissioners is essential to make Shelter’s voice and expertise heard. This is also to ensure we proactively influence policy and defend the rights of people in the Criminal Justice System. The evidence we submitted to the Justice Select Committee in 2018 helped lead to the introduction of Enhanced Through the Gate (ETTG), additional resources from the government, as well as a more joined-up approach to supporting people with their rehabilitation needs.

Effecting systemic change

We encouraged joint working and ensured that adequate systems are in place to support case management, manage our performance and provide data insight. This has been key in gathering evidence and data to help improve systems where needed.

Working with the Probation Service and local authorities, we helped shape local homelessness strategies, upskilling probation staff and partner agencies. We also supported KPMG with the development of the Regional Probation Directorates’ Reducing Re-Offending Plans.

Focus on those most in need

Most importantly, we need to focus our expertise and knowledge of accommodation issues on those who are most in need. Working with community rehabilitation companies (CRCs), we created pathways for individuals whose accommodation needs often needed to be coordinated with other services – e.g. substance misuse and mental health. We also helped to set up multi-agency resettlement boards across prisons, working closely with local Homelessness Prevention Teams.

Involving Peer Mentors and people who use our services

Whilst contract delivery varied between areas depending on the contractor’s delivery model, the contracts couldn’t have been delivered without the support of our Peer Mentors (people with lived experience helping others in a similar situation) in custody and volunteers in the community. Additionally, involving operational staff and people who use our services to co-design and improve services was key to developing impactful services.

Our experience of delivering the Transforming Rehabilitation contracts means we are in a strong position to deliver the new Dynamic Framework contracts commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. We look forward to continuing to share best practice and working collaboratively so that people in need to resettle in the community are able to find a safe home.

--oo00oo--

My takeaway from the full report is this revealing statement:-

Our impact was lessened to some degree through being a sub-contractor to primes, which meant contractually we had to be careful not to cause reputational damage. However, the scale of our delivery meant that our voice was still heard. A key lesson is the need to ensure that in the future we have a more direct relationship with the commissioner, that gagging clauses do not prevent us from speaking out or challenging the lack of accommodation support for offenders and that we become more proactive in influencing policy and practice by working more closely with Shelter’s Communications, Policy and Campaigns (CPC) teams.

Compared with Shelters mission statement:- 

We exist to defend the right to a safe home and fight the devastating impact the housing emergency has on people and society. 

We do this with campaigns, advice and support - and we never give up. We believe that home is everything.

Rhetoric and Reality

Channel 4 news has for me always stood out head and shoulders above other news providers and of course it's no great surprise that it's attracted the ire of the Tory party for doing its job so diligently. I note Kathy Newman has decided to expand on the piece the other day about a rehabilitation charity closing housing provision due to government funding cuts. It's a familiar pattern of course, but somewhat at odds with party political rhetoric:-   

Boris Johnson’s crime slogans might win votes, but taxpayers will foot the bill if offenders end up on the streets

Six houses in southern England have for more than four decades provided a home for thousands of the most vulnerable people. Vulnerable, and dangerous. Because the houses run by a charity – Change Grow Live – have offered accommodation over the years for around 2,000 former prisoners who have committed serious offences.

But on Friday, as my colleague Jackie Long reported on Wednesday’s Channel 4 News, those houses will close their doors. The charity blames funding cuts. They’ve been bankrolled by West Sussex County Council since 2003, but with central government grants cut by 38 per cent in real terms over the decade to 2019, the money has run out. For four months, Change Grow Live has funded the housing project itself. But now it can do so no longer.

By an unfortunate quirk of timing, this comes in the same week that the government announced its blitz on crime. On Wednesday, the Ministry of Justice also announced that criminals would be guaranteed accommodation when they left prison as part of a £20m plan to reduce reoffending.

It sounds like a good idea, but according to Change Grow Live, it’s a “quick fix”. The charity warns that without a long-term, well-funded solution, ex-offenders are more likely to end up on the streets – where they could pose a threat to the public – or back in jail, where they’ll end up costing the taxpayer more.

“Beating Crime” risks being little more than a slogan if the criminal justice system in its entirety is under-resourced. This journalist-turned-prime minister is, like a hack on a deadline, a true pro at coming up with an attention-grabbing phrase. His critics fear it’s the details that sometimes elude him.

Boris Johnson certainly captured the headlines with his pledge to make ex-offenders join “fluorescent-jacketed chain gangs”, or slap GPS ankle tags on burglars. But it’s hard to treat either policy as ground-breaking when both have actually been announced or trialled years ago. Labour tried the hi-vis jackets in 2008 and abandoned it after the offenders were abused by members of the public. The expansion of electronic tagging was first announced in 2011, and was originally supposed to have been rolled out across England and Wales in 2019. This week’s announcement was scaled back to just 19 police force areas.

And what’s underpinning these eye-catching pronouncements? Across the criminal justice system – police, courts, prisons and probation – years of spending constraints are now beginning to be reversed. But those at the sharp end say budget cuts of such magnitude should never have been made.

There has been a tacit – though not public – admission that cutting 20,000 police officers since 2010 was a mistake. The prime minister says the government is now half way to restoring those numbers, but when I asked the policing minister Kit Malthouse if the original cuts had been an error, he cited financial pressures at the time. It’s telling that despite the huge burden of pandemic debt, the government now sees fit to make the investment.

On prisons and probation, too, ministers insist they’re starting to boost expenditure, though the details are murky. The Ministry of Justice saw spending fall by 25 per cent between 2010 and 2020. Prison and probation minister Alex Chalk was unable to tell me on Channel 4 News on Wednesday whether the promise of an extra 2,500 probation officers restored the numbers cut since the Conservatives came to power, nor how much lower probation funding was now than then. He was, he said, “99 per cent sure” it was higher.

And while Johnson waxed lyrical on “chain gangs”, I didn’t hear him explain how he planned to clear the record crown court backlog of sixty thousand cases – a relic not just of lockdown constraints but budgetary ones too, leading barristers say. Nearly two decades ago, when I was still a newspaper hack myself, I remember the then Tory shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin setting out a big new idea on law and order, and a startling break from the party’s “prison works” policies of the Thatcher era. He wanted to end what he called the “conveyor belt” of criminality.

It didn’t win the Conservatives power. And perhaps that’s the point. No doubt the hi-vis jackets and the ankle tags will be popular. But will they stop people re-offending?

And if that doesn’t give you pause for thought, consider this: a year in one of the houses run by Change Grow Live costs £18,000. A year in prison costs £44,000. Put like that, the failure so far to address long-term under-investment in the criminal justice system could end up becoming a greater burden to the taxpayer in the long run.

Cathy Newman presents ‘Channel 4 News’, weekdays, at 7pm

--oo00oo--

The origins of Change Grow Live will come as no great surprise to probation officers of a certain vintage because such initiatives were commonplace during the enlightened times when magistrates ran the probation service, not politicians:-

A pattern and a plan

We got our start back in 1977, when a group of magistrates in Sussex noticed a pattern. They saw people going to prison, being released with no home to go to, re-offending and being sent back to prison, over and over again.

So they decided to do something about it.

Recognising that homelessness was the basis for the pattern, they pooled their resources and bought a house. From there, they started offering accommodation and support to people leaving prison. They called their charity the Sussex Association For The Rehabilitation of Offenders, or Saro for short.

Seeing the whole person

In those early days, volunteers did all the work. They saw their approach had a big impact, so they opened more houses across Sussex to support people leaving prison.

They also noticed that drugs and alcohol played a role in the cycle of homelessness and offending. So they started to look for ways to provide support with those issues too. It might sound obvious, but taking a holistic approach that looked at everything going on in someone’s life was pioneering.

It proved to be just what people needed. To keep up with the demand for our services in the 1990s, we merged with other local organisations, including a domestic violence charity and a residential rehabilitation unit, and hired our first paid members of staff.

We also started a groundbreaking project: Get It While You Can. One of our members of staff - who started out using our services - had a great idea to put peer support workers in police custody rooms. The thinking was that right after someone’s arrested is the ideal time to get support. We also thought speaking to someone who’d been through similar experiences would help them see that there was a path forward.

It was an innovative, effective idea. It wasn’t the norm to make a connection between drugs and crime, use early intervention or peer support, but it worked.

Going nationwide

Get It While You Can was so successful that we wanted to roll it out nationwide and help as many people as possible. But the name ‘Sussex Association For The Rehabilitation of Offenders’ didn’t feel right now we weren’t just operating in Sussex. It was time for a change, so we chose a new name: Crime Reduction Initiatives.

As we started running projects across the country, we noticed another issue that was playing a role in the cycle of drug addiction and crime. People couldn’t get access to drugs like methadone fast enough to help them tackle their addiction, and that made it harder for them to make the changes they wanted to see in their lives. We developed new ways to make access to treatment quicker and better, like in-house prescribing, day programmes and counselling services.

Becoming Change Grow Live

In 2012 we merged with Sova, another charity working to help people change their lives and fulfil their potential.

Around the same time, we also noticed another change in our service users. We saw that more and more of the people we were supporting hadn’t committed a crime. Our name - Crime Reduction Initiative - was a barrier, because they felt like our services weren’t for them.

So in 2016 we changed our name again, to Change Grow Live. We took the name from the phases of our recovery programme: foundations of change, foundations of growth, foundations of life. It showed how we worked and helped tackle the stigma around seeking help.

2017 was also a year of change and growth for us. A charity called Lifeline was in crisis, and the vital services it ran were at risk of closing. We stepped in and took over some of those services to keep them running for their users.

The future

Since we first started, one goal has driven everything we do: to make a difference in people’s lives. That’s still what drives us now. We know that what we do works, so we want as many people as possible to benefit. That’s how we’ll make our vision - to change society for the better - a reality.

Russell on the Future

So, how did Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service do yesterday in the Spending Review? It's a pay freeze for probation staff and £4billion over four years for 18,000 new prison places - to create jobs of course. This forced marriage really isn't working too well on any level is it? Whilst the reality sinks in, HMI Justin Russell recently gave an interview to Civil Service World:-  

Probation inspector Justin Russell on coronavirus, Transforming Rehabilitation and the Spending Review

After years of funding cuts and the looming renationalisation of outsourced probation services, Russell calls for extra funding to be “baked into the baseline” for the Spending Review

This summer, HM Inspectorate of Probation did something it had never done before: it began conducting entirely remote inspections of probation services for the first time. The change came around a year after Justin Russell was appointed to lead the inspectorate – for the first few months of which, the job was pretty much what he expected. “And then obviously, Covid happened”

When Russell speaks to CSW, the inspectorate has just published its first entirely-remote report on the North Yorkshire Youth Offending Team. It’s now inspecting several other youth-offending services, as well as thematic inspections of the impact of coronavirus on probation services. “We’ve found we can do that – we can do the focus groups and analyse the case remotely,” he says.

And HMIP has been looking at how probation services are adapting to the pandemic, having gone into six local areas over the summer to see how both public and outsourced services were coping. After examining around 60 cases in detail, Russell says “we were positive about how they reacted”.

“They've had to react at a very great pace, they've had to completely switch their operating model. So apart from a small number of high-risk people, everyone is being contacted by phone. They have had to suspend some basic services – certainly during lockdown, they weren't providing any unpaid work sentences for the courts, and they weren't able to start accredited behaviour programmes. They are now starting to be able to do those, but it's been a slow process of recovery.”

And the new arrangements have worked for some people, he says. Many of the probation staff that inspectors spoke to were happy about the arrangements, as well as service users who had a “reasonably stable home life – some of them actually, in some ways, preferred being supervised by phone because it meant I didn't have to sort out childcare or find public transport”.

But the changes have been harder for more vulnerable users, including those with mental health problems. “They definitely struggled a bit more and missed having that personal, face-to-face contact with the probation officer.”

One of the happier consequences of this that Russell has seen is that coordination between public agencies seemed to improve during lockdown. Probation services had more check-ins with police and social services to share information about call-outs they had had, and attendance at multi-agency risk panel meetings went up when they were held virtually. “So that felt like a positive thing.”

And providers are finding other ways to adapt to the pandemic, restarting services they had to cancel during lockdown, using smaller groups and online courses where they can.

But the inspectorate is also aware that the effectiveness of remote supervision in probation is not well understood. A literature review it did a couple of years ago found “there hadn't been any robust research” on the subject, Russell says. There have been no randomised trials exploring whether it provides better outcomes than face-to-face supervision, for example. “So we really didn't know whether phone supervision would be effective or not – and to be honest, we still don't know.”

But while feedback from both probation staff and service users has been “reasonably positive”, problems can arise when the two haven’t met before. “So where professionals have already met someone face to face and done the initial assessment, it’s easier to continue liaising with them over the phone; where you've never met and you’re doing the whole thing over the phone, I think people find that a bit more difficult. So that's where the gap is.”

Many probation services have tried to address this by having an initial meeting in an office before moving to remote supervision, and keeping up in-person appointments for people who have just left prison. Asked if he thinks there should be a standard policy, Russell says it’s for probation services to decide. “What we will continue to do is inspect the quality of the work they're doing, whether they do that face to face, or by telephone.” As it inspects more cases, the inspectorate will be able to build up some of the evidence it lacks on how the mode of delivery affects services, he says.

In fact, HMIP began a two-month study at the end of September on how probation services are recovering from lockdown. The national inspection is looking at six local areas and 250 cases – some that started before and others after lockdown measures were introduced – to see how well services’ planning and recovery is panning out.

“That will start to give us some insights into the quality of work that they're doing, as well as the quantity of it,” Russell says. “It's a big enough sample that we'll be able to hopefully start to get into what's the quality of work that's been done over that period. You know, recovery is a slow process. I think all the regional directors I'm talking to are saying, ‘This isn't going to happen overnight’.”

In the last couple of months, services have started increasing their face-to-face delivery, starting up unpaid work placements, and opening up behaviour programmes again. And with the courts now sitting again, new community sentences are coming through that the inspectorate will have to keep an eye on. But Russell acknowledges that the delivery of in-person services could start “going backwards a bit” now that the second wave of coronavirus has hit.

All this is forming the backdrop to services’ preparations for some massive reforms that will come into play next year when the National Probation Service regains responsibility for low and medium-risk offenders, which was handed to private Community Rehabilitation Companies in 2012. The Transforming Rehabilitation outsourcing programme is widely acknowledged to have been a failure – Russell’s predecessor, Dame Glenys Stacey, concluded last summer that it was “irredeemably flawed”.

But Russell says preparing for the transition next June is a “really big challenge for probation leaders and directors” already dealing with the consequences of the pandemic. The inspectorate will be following their progress closely and will be doing an inspection on transition planning by the end of this year.

He also warns that bringing services back under public control is no easy fix because “structural change by itself very rarely solves all of your problems – you need the resources to back it up.” Probation officers in both CRCs and the NPS have been struggling with huge caseloads due to a lack of resources, and services have suffered as staff have become more and more stretched – but HMIP’s inspection reports of CRCs have been particularly critical.

While there are signs of improvement in some areas – some CRCs have improved their performance in the most recent round of inspections – some just aren’t getting better. He says a “three-tier” probation service has emerged, “with the NPS continuing to perform okay – although it's got its own issues; two or three providers actually do reasonably okay now; and then some that are still really struggling.” Of particular concern are those in the Midlands and some of the Purple Futures partnerships, which are led by Interserve, the contracting giant that was sold last year after financial trouble threatened it with collapse.

Russell is concerned that shifting the CRCs’ massive caseloads to the public sector without a serious funding injection to hire more staff and spread the load is “not necessarily going to improve quality”.

“And you're going to potentially have issues as people are transferring over, there might also be a loss of focus during that transition process,” he adds. CRC staff moving over to the NPS must get adequate training before they take on high-risk service users.

As with most things, Russell says the success of the latest reforms rests in no small part on whether they are properly funded, noting that “the history of probation funding over the last 10, 20 years has been one of increasing cuts.” For one thing, the Ministry of Justice’s budget has not been protected under the austerity measures that began in 2010. The impact on violence in prisons has been well documented, but Russell says there have been some “big impacts” on probation too.

In fact, there has been a 40% real-terms drop in probation funding per case since 2003 – as HMIP’s submission to the Treasury for the upcoming Spending Review points out. “That's a big gap to make up going forward, and that's why it's so important that the Spending Review does start to address that gap.”

That funding is critical because when probation officers are having to supervise 70 or 80 people at a time, it doesn’t just affect staff wellbeing – although Russell notes the inspectorate has seen very high sickness rates. “It just becomes unsustainable if you're trying to keep an eye on what's happening in their lives,” he says. Things can get missed – things like if a service user changes their address, meets a new partner or moves in with someone who has children, or if the police fail to share the information about an arrest.

“In every service, we look at a sample of the cases they’re supervising and we are consistently finding the area of weakest performance is around managing the risk of harm to people's families or to the wider community,” Russell says. At private providers, fewer than half of cases are being satisfactorily supervised in relation to risk of harm. That figure is slightly lower at the NPS, but still too high.

As well as the funding issue, services are finding it hard to fill vacancies. HMIP has no nationwide data for CRCs, but found the NPS had 600 vacancies in June 2019, and was having to use agency staff to plug the gaps.

Does Russell believe ministers have grasped the enormity of the problems in front of them? “Very much so, and the HMPPS leadership certainly does as well.” He points to a £150m funding increase for probation this year, as well as a capital funding boost that he hopes will address the “pretty shocking” conditions on some premises. And HMPPS has meanwhile committed to hiring 1,000 probation-officer trainees by January.

But he stresses that the extra funding cannot be a one-off, but has to be “baked into the baseline” for the Spending Review. Not only do services have a shortfall to make up after years of cuts, he adds; the government’s pledge to reverse cuts to police forces by recruiting 20,000 more officers in three years will generate extra work “over and above just closing existing funding gaps”.

He says it’s difficult to know whether the Spending Review will deliver that critical extra funding – and adds that it’s not only probation-specific funding that matters. “It's the funding for all of the other services that they work with. There's a whole ecosystem of support that goes around probation and mental health services, drug services and support services. And all of those suffered as well over recent years.”

Homelessness is one such area, he says. HMIP published a study earlier this year showing 11,000 people leave prison into homelessness, including 3,000 higher-risk offenders. It also found the proportion of people who got called back into prison or reconvicted was twice as high for people who didn't have stable accommodation after they left prison services, “so it’s potentially a really big driver of crime and reoffending”.

“So there's a huge need for decent and stable housing for people coming out of prison, which needs to be invested in. Ten or 15 years ago, the probation service actually had its own budget to commission its own accommodation for offenders. That's gone.” Instead, it can only commission a small number of so-called “approved premises beds” for the people at highest risk, which can only accommodate people for 12 weeks.

Another “really big gap” is support for substance abuse, he says. He points to Dame Carol Black’s ongoing review for the Home Office on the misuse of illegal drugs, which has shown funding for drug treatment had plummeted, while Class-A drug deaths are at a record high.

“So it's all very well funding probation, but you also need to fund the services they refer on to, to make a big difference,” Russell says. He hopes the cross-government group on crime and reoffending – which is chaired by the prime minister and is being given evidence on these matters – is a sign things could change.

This is a subject Russell knows well, having spent a year at the University of California Berkeley earlier in his career on a fellowship looking at substance-abuse treatment programmes for offenders in the US, and what could be learned for the UK. “That was a really key year in my career, where I went from being someone with a research interest to a much broader policy interest and realised the difference the government could make in some areas,” he says.

The ideas he brought back from that led directly to the introduction of the drug testing and treatment order, a community sentence including treatment and rehabilitation for people with a record of drug-related offending, in the 1998 Criminal Justice Act. Russell was a policy adviser to then-home secretary Jack Straw at the time. “So that's very satisfying to see that translate into a direct policy initiative,” he says.

“The reason that was so seminal a year was that it sparked off that interest in evidence-driven policymaking and looking at different innovations at the front line and thinking about how you can translate that into practice – and how things roll out, and the interaction of politics and government and evidence and social-policy experts... that ended up being what I've done in my career.”

Beckie Smith

Tsar Falls From Grace

Elevated from obscurity at Centre Point by Tony Blair, I've never been a fan of loud-mouthed Louise Casey and not at all sure what her successes have been during her many high-profile posts over subsequent years. Always ambitious, I hadn't even noticed she was one of Boris Johnson's cronies recently elevated to the Peerage following her return to being the homeless 'Tsar'. The government ''guff'' from May:-

A specialist taskforce has been created to lead the next phase of the government’s support for rough sleepers during the pandemic.

Spearheaded by Dame Louise Casey, the taskforce will work hand-in-hand with councils across the country on plans to ensure rough sleepers can move into long-term, safe accommodation once the immediate crisis is over – ensuring as few people as possible return to life on the streets.

The taskforce will also ensure the thousands of rough sleepers now in accommodation continue to receive the physical and mental health support they need over the coming weeks while they continue to self-isolate from the virus.

Over 90% of rough sleepers known to councils at the beginning of the crisis have now been offered accommodation where they can remain safe during the crisis – helping protect themselves and others from contracting the virus.

This has been backed by £3.2 million in targeted funding to help councils get as many people off the streets as possible, with a further £3.2 billion additional funding for councils to help them continue to respond to the pandemic and support their communities – including their vital work helping those sleeping rough.

Housing Secretary Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP said:

"By working closely with councils, charities, faith groups and health providers, we have offered accommodation to over 5,400 people who were sleeping rough at the beginning of the crisis: that’s over 90% of known rough sleepers. This national effort has potentially helped to protect thousands of lives.

As the country prepares for the next phase of the battle against coronavirus, Dame Louise Casey will spearhead a taskforce to provide us with expert advice and knowledge to put in place a long-term plan to stop as many vulnerable people as possible from returning to life on the streets."

Dame Louise Casey said:

"The storm of COVID-19 has affected us all in many, varied and sometimes deeply tragic ways - we know that it is a virus that does not discriminate. Due to the incredible efforts by people in local councils, charities, hotel staff and the public, many rough sleepers have been brought in and off the streets.

Much has been done, and there is much still to do. We have all had to respond to this crisis with a deep resolve but also innovation – in bringing people inside, there is now a real opportunity to address the health and social needs of these individuals and if we can stop them going back to the streets. This, like so much over the last few weeks, will take a huge national effort and I’m pleased to be able to be part of that."

--oo00oo--

We all know Boris is one for gesture politics rather than considered action and her appointment was probably just a bit of further 'window dressing' rather than part of any concerted effort to deliver on his stated aim last December of eliminating street homelessness.  

Anyway, Louise has suddenly thrown in the towel and nobody seems to know why. With absolutely no knowledge as to the reason, I simply invite readers to consider for one moment the likely outcome of a meeting of minds should she find herself in the same room as Dominic Cummings. For some reason I have this vision of her finding reason to give him a good slap. This from the Guardian:-

Fears over 'vacuum' as top UK homelessness adviser steps down
The government’s top adviser on homelessness has stepped down unexpectedly, sparking fears of a strategy vacuum as hundreds of thousands of tenants face possible eviction over rent arrears accrued during the coronavirus pandemic.

Dame Louise Casey told housing and campaign groups on Wednesday that she had stepped back from her role, which involved leading a specialist taskforce set up in May to prevent a return to widespread rough sleeping after thousands of people were helped off the streets in March and April.

After being awarded a crossbench peerage last month she said she now wanted to make her “contribution to public service” from the House of Lords, according to a note circulated to sector leaders. “This seemed like the right moment to step back, especially as the country looks to gear up to the ‘new normal’,” she wrote.

Jon Sparkes, the chief executive of charity Crisis, was informed by Casey of her decision. “We urge minsters not to leave a leadership vacuum. With the economic impact of the pandemic pushing more people into homelessness, we must redouble our efforts, otherwise we risk rates of rough sleeping rising with all the human misery this entails.”

Casey has not yet commented publicly on the move. One housing sector source said they understood she had been urging a different approach to the lifting of the evictions ban this weekend which would offer greater protection. But it is not known if this was a factor in her decision.

Charities and campaigners are bracing for the lifting of the ban, which they warn could lead to hundreds of thousands of people made homeless. Labour and charities including Shelter and Crisis are calling for it to be postponed. Crisis said it was taken by surprise by Casey’s move. It said the government’s strategy was to meet its target of ending rough sleeping by 2024 and it was unclear who would now lead that effort. “This is a deep concern,” said Matt Downie, the policy director at Crisis. “What we need now is coordinated action across government with the leadership and assertiveness of someone like Louise Casey.”

There are signs that rough sleeping is increasing again, in a trend that is likely to be exacerbated by rising unemployment as the recession bites. Figures from the homelessness charity Streetlink this week showed that alerts by members of the public about rough sleepers increased by 36% year on year between April and June 2020, reaching 16,976. Notifications were also higher than the previous quarter.

In February, Casey was appointed to review the government’s rough sleeping strategy before the impact of the pandemic became clear. Her role quickly morphed into crisis management. As well as helping arrange thousands of hotel and temporary accommodation spaces to get rough sleepers indoors, she was credited with securing an additional £105m for more permanent accommodation for those people to move into.

Nearly 15,000 people were helped under the government’s Everyone In initiative. Casey previously advised the Blair government on homelessness and in her latest role reported to Boris Johnson and the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick. Sources said it remained possible that she could take part in the original review of the government’s rough sleeping strategy if it restarted.

Jenrick said: “I would like to thank Dame Louise for her contribution at such a challenging time, which has led to so many rough sleepers being helped off the streets and kept safe from coronavirus. Her work leading the rough sleeping taskforce will ensure as many people as possible who have been brought in do not return to sleeping rough. Our plans for longer-term accommodation – 3,300 homes this year alone – and tailored support, backed by half a billion pounds of funding this year and next, will help us to meet our commitment to end rough sleeping once and for all.”

Official homelessness statistics published on Thursday showed there were nearly 5,000 tenants in England threatened with section 21 “no fault” evictions between January and the end of March before lockdown, a 25% increase on the previous three-month period.

Campaigners warned that many of these tenants, who were able to stay in their home throughout the pandemic after the government issued a temporary eviction ban on 18 March, will face having to leave their home when the ban ends on Sunday.

Section 21 enables private landlords to repossess their properties without having to establish fault on the part of the tenant, in some cases enabling them to re-let the property at a higher rent. It has been criticised for giving too much power to landlords. The government promised in 2019 to scrap it, but has not yet done so.

Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, said: “Today’s figures show private renters were already badly affected by homelessness when the pandemic was just taking hold. Thousands more renters have since had their lives turned upside down as the country descends in economic free fall.”

Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow housing secretary, said: “These figures highlight the urgent need to extend the evictions ban, to avoid thousands more people being made homeless in the run-up to winter.”

A Fairy Tale

One thing all probation practitioners know without hesitation is that lack of settled accommodation is the single most serious problem faced by those under our supervision and therefore a major impediment to the prevention of further offending. 

Despite all the warm words and supposed initiatives, homelessness has been a growing problem for decades and with emergency Covid 19 measures in the process of ending the situation will visibly and disgracefully re-emerge on our streets. But we hear the shortage of housing generally is going to be urgently addressed with Boris Johnson's cunning plan to 'build, build, build' out of the pandemic. Just like magic, total reform of the planning system is going to deliver 'more homes, quicker, cheaper and more beautiful'. Who writes this shite and more importantly, who seriously believes it?

The Daily Telegraph is of course the favoured mouth piece of the Tory Party and it's worth quoting in full Robert Jenrick's fairy tale from last Saturday:-

Radical and necessary reforms to our planning system will get Britain building

We are introducing a simpler, faster, people-focused system to deliver the homes and places we need

During lockdown many readers will have spent more time at home than ever before; a home can be a haven, that provides financial security, roots in a community and a place that a family can call their own. But our country’s outdated and cumbersome planning system has contributed to a generational divide between those who own property and those who don’t. Half as many 16-34 year olds own their own homes, compared to those aged 35-64.

While house prices have soared since the Millennium, with England seeing an increase at one of the fastest rates in Europe, our complex and slow planning system has been a barrier to building homes which are affordable, where families want to raise children and build their lives.

It’s resulted in delays to vital infrastructure projects that come with new housing. Communities are missing out on new hospitals, new schools and improved roads and restrictions have left derelict buildings as eyesores and empty shops on our high streets, instead of helping them to adapt and evolve.

Local building plans were supposed to help councils and their residents deliver more homes in their area, yet they take on average seven years to agree in the form of lengthy and absurdly complex documents and accompanying policies understandable only to the lawyers who feast upon every word.

Under the current system, it takes an average of five years for a standard housing development to go through the planning system - before a spade is even in the ground. Seven years to make a plan, five years to get permission to build the houses and slow delivery of vital infrastructure.

This is why the Prime Minister has been clear that we need an ambitious response that matches the scale of the challenge in front of us. A once in a generation reform that lays the foundations for a better future. So this week I am bringing forward radical and necessary reforms to our planning system to get Britain building and drive our economic recovery.

We are introducing a simpler, faster, people-focused system to deliver the homes and places we need. Under the new process, through democratic local agreement, land will be designated in one of three categories: for growth, for renewal or for protection. Land designated for growth will empower development - new homes, hospitals, schools, shops and offices will be allowed automatically. People can get going.

Renewal areas will enable much quicker development with a 'permission in principle' approach to balance speed while ensuring appropriate checks are carried out. And protected land will be just that - our Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and rich heritage – will be protected as the places, views and landscapes we cherish most and passed on to the next generation as set out in our manifesto.

Our reforms seek a more diverse and competitive housing industry, in which smaller builders can thrive alongside the big players and where planning permissions are turned into homes faster than they are today.

Creating a new planning system isn’t a task we undertake lightly, but it is both an overdue and a timely reform. Millions of jobs depend on the construction sector and in every economic recovery, it has played a crucial role. These reforms will create thousands of new jobs, from bricklayers to architects. We are cutting red tape, but not standards. We will be driven by outcomes, not process.

It is easy to see why so many people are wary of development, when streets of identikit, “anywheresville” housing has become the norm. This Government doesn’t want to just build houses. We want a society that has re-established powerful links between identity and place, between our unmatchable architectural heritage and the future, between community and purpose. Our reformed system places a higher regard on quality and design than ever before, and draws inspiration from the idea of design codes and pattern books that built Bath, Belgravia and Bournville.

John Ruskin said that we must build and when we do let us think that we build forever. That will be guiding principle as we set out the future of the planning system. New developments will be beautiful places, not just collections of buildings. Good design is the best antidote to local objections to building. We will build environmentally friendly homes that will not need to be expensively retrofitted in the future, homes with green spaces and new parks at close hand, where tree lined streets are provided for in law, where neighbours are not strangers.

We are moving away from notices on lampposts to an interactive, and accessible map-based online system – placing planning at the fingertips of people. The planning process will be brought into the 21st century. Communities will be reconnected to a planning process that is supposed to serve them, with residents more engaged over what happens in their areas.

While the current system excludes residents who don’t have the time to contribute to the lengthy and archaic planning process, local democracy and accountability will now be enhanced by technology and transparency.

Above all, these reforms will help us build the homes our country desperately needs by unlocking land and new opportunities. In so doing we will provide secure housing for the vulnerable, bridge the generational divide and recreate an ownership society, one in which millions more people can open their front door and say with pride, “welcome to my home”.

Robert Jenrick is the Housing Secretary

--oo00oo--

As with so much Tory propaganda it's just smoke and mirrors designed to grab a headline, based on grossly distorted facts and completely undeliverable aspirations - come to think of it just like the Transforming Rehabilitation fiasco of Chris Grayling or more recently the 'world-beating track and trace system' of Matt Hancock. Words are so cheap and bare-faced lies no longer seem to carry much in the way of risk. Somehow deregulating is going to increase citizen involvement in the planning process?   

The evidence shows that it's not delays in the planning system that prevent more homes being built at all. The truth of the matter is that the main reason is all the big house builders have vast swathes of land 'banked', planning approvals granted and in a capitalist world they only drip-feed new houses onto the market in such a way as to ensure steadily-rising prices. Despite all the usual bluff and bluster from Boris, he knows this perfectly well and of course the house builders are big donors to the Tory Party.

Talking of political donors, it will be recalled that Mr Jenrick has recently been in a spot of bother with his disgraceful and now unlawful London Docklands Westferry Printworks intervention that robbed Tower Hamlets citizens of £40million for public services, but handsomely lined the pocket of Tory donor Richard Desmond. For me this whole sordid episode goes to the real heart of the planning problem and that has its roots in the post-war settlement and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.  

Essentially the post-war Labour government were determined to nationalise any 'betterment' that might accrue as a consequence of land increasing in value due to a change of use. A very simple and fair way of financing public services some would say, rather than allowing land owners to pocket large windfalls due to successful planning applications. But therein lies the dividing line between left and right; socialism and capitalism; Labour and Conservative. Sadly this aspect of the Act was revoked by a later Tory government and it's worth noting that the funding of public services has been problematic ever since. 

Rather alarmingly the Jenrick proposals are going to exacerbate the situation by removing the Local Authority's ability to extract some developer contribution via so-called Section 106 payments that until now have been a main source of funding for social housing. This from Inside Housing:-

Concerns for social rent as government unveils plans to scrap Section 106

Ministers intend to abolish Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy planning agreements and replace them with a new overarching Infrastructure Levy as part of the move to a zonal planning system.

Housing commentators raised concerns about what the changes will mean for delivering social rented homes, with details limited as Inside Housing went to press on Wednesday night.

Melanie Rees, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: “The big question in my mind is what this means for social rented homes. Robert Jenrick has talked about people not being able to buy a home, but the planning system is about more than that. We’d like real reassurance that there won’t be a negative impact on homes for genuinely affordable rent as a result of this, and that’s a bit of a concern at the moment.”

Kate Henderson, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said: “Any alternative to Section 106 must ensure we can deliver more high-quality affordable homes to meet the huge demand across the country. Any new system must also enable the ’levelling up’ of communities that have already been left behind, such as rural communities or places with a struggling local economy.”

Section 106 planning agreements see developers deliver affordable homes in exchange for permission to build and are the biggest contribution to affordable housing supply. In 2018/19, the mechanism accounted for 49% of all affordable homes completed in England.

Housing secretary Robert Jenrick claimed that the “once-in-a-generation” reforms will make planning decisions “simple and transparent, with local democracy at the heart of the process”.

The Infrastructure Levy will be a fixed portion of the value of the development, above a set threshold, with revenues going towards local projects such as new roads, playgrounds and discounted homes for local first-time buyers. It will represent “a new simpler levy to replace the current system of developer contributions which often causes delay,” the government said in a press release.

But Hugh Ellis, policy director at the Town and Country Planning Association, agreed, adding: “For a national land tax to work it’s going to have to be very complicated and it’s going to be have to be graduated if it’s going to succeed.”

Richard Blyth, head of policy and practice at the Royal Town Planning Institute, said that a flat rate charge may be difficult to create because of differing land values across the country.

--oo00oo--

As with many of Boris Johnson's current Cabinet, the Housing Secretary may be of limited experience and ability but that doesn't mean his views haven't been coloured by his own planning woes. This from June in his local paper:- 

Robert Jenrick the secretary of state for housing who is currently embroiled in a row over a planning decision has some previous experience with planning matters, reports The Times newspaper. Conservative councillors on Westminster council gave planning permission for an enlargement of Jenrick’s townhouse despite officers recommending the application be refused because it would harm the appearance of the building and the conservation area.

The Times reports that Jenrick’s wife submitted a planning application to build a roof extension on their home in Vincent Square, SW1 in August 2014 two months after he had been elected as a Conservative MP. Two previous applications submitted by Jenrick himself had been refused. Planning officers were recommending refusal of this third application but Steve Summers a Tory councillor and a neighbour of Jenrick made an official request that a planning committee take the decision and not officers.

In November 2014 the three Conservative members of the planning committee — Richard Beddoe, Robert Rigby and Paul Church — voted to overturn the officers recommendation and approve the scheme. Ruth Bush, the single Labour member of the committee voted against the application. The Times states that Beddoe, who chaired the planning sub-committee, did not respond to a request for comment, while Rigby and Summers both referred the newspaper to the council’s press department.

A spokesperson for Westminster council told The Times that “planning committees are entitled to reach their own conclusions” weighing up various criteria and on this occasion disagreed with officers. A spokesperson for Jenrick said that a normal planning process was followed.

--oo00oo--

Make no mistake, despite all the warm words and rhetoric, these proposals are all about further deregulation allowing the big house builders even more of a strangle-hold over housing provision and hence greater profits. Just look at what has already been happening with Permitted Development Rights allowing unsuitable conversion of office accommodation to residential use, by-passing the normal LA planning process. We are indeed creating the new slums of the future, not the deluded vision of tree-lined boulevards of 'beautiful' houses. The experts clearly agree in a joint letter from four esteemed institutes of architects and town planners:-

Use of PDRs 

It is in this light that we share our concerns around the use of PDRs, which should not be considered unless subject to clear space, building and design standards. You will no doubt be aware of the comments of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, who concluded that PDRs had inadvertently created “future slums”. 

Automatic permissions for the conversion of office spaces to housing, without requirements relating to quality, size, sustainability and design, has led to spaces detrimental to the wellbeing of residents. We are concerned that further PDRs, including the ability to demolish and rebuild on existing sites — if implemented without significant safeguards—will lock in more unacceptable standard development, the consequences of which we will live with for generations or must rectify later at greater expense. We welcome the recent move, via a statutory instrument, to require natural light in homes created from office conversions.

However, this situation should never have arisen, and homes without windows, as well as other egregious example of such poor quality living conditions, must never be allowed to happen again. 

Our offer of help 

We have seen further announcements related to PDRs, including: 

• Extra storeys on residential building without the need for planning permission 
• Demolition of empty buildings if replaced with residential, without the need for planning permission 
• Further reforms to use class orders, to expand the commercial presences that can be repurposed to residential without planning permission 

We are concerned around how these PDRs will be implemented, and the potential impact on the quality of life of future residents and local communities. All PDRs must require minimum space, building and design standards, and should be implemented in such a way as to ensure they contribute towards affordable housing and community infrastructure. Having these safeguards does not mean delays in construction, it means that the homes built in the early 2020s will not become the social disasters of the 2030s. 

While we stand ready to advise on how to create the best possible outcomes under a PDR regime, we strongly urge proactive rather than reactive planning of this sort for the built environment. A longer term, more sustainable solution would look at interventions earlier in the building process, rather than retrofitting buildings that are fundamentally not suitable as housing. 

The creation of buildings which are properly suited to undergo various different uses during their lifetime would be preferable to the change of use of buildings which are not suited and which need proper conversion.

--oo00oo--

As with the probation 'reforms', these planning 'reforms' will not deliver the absurd claims; are a bad idea universally condemned by the experts; are driven by political ideology and will only reward big business and the usual friends of the Tory Party. But as this piece from the BBC highlights, it might yet all fall foul of the Tory faithful, typically residing as they do in the leafy suburbs and Shire Counties, all well-practised NIMBY's by nature who just might see some very unsavoury and unwelcome development in prospect in their back yard:-  

Robert Jenrick defends overhaul of England's 'outdated' planning system

Sweeping changes to the "outdated" planning system in England will make it easier to build much-needed new homes, the housing secretary has said. Robert Jenrick said local people would not be able to block developments in designated "growth" zones. The changes were needed to speed up the planning process, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. But critics say they could lead to "bad-quality housing" and loss of local control over development.

The government says it wants reduce the number of planning cases that get overturned at appeal by creating a "clearer, rules-based system". Mr Jenrick told Today local people would get a "meaningful say" at the start of the planning process, when local plans are drawn up, but will not be able to block new schemes after that. He claimed local people "did not have a great deal of influence" over the current planning system and that few people engaged with it.

He told BBC Breakfast: "We have a major housing challenge but also a major economic challenge and a lot of people's jobs depend on this industry. We think our new system will still be democratic, it will still have local engagement, but it will be much faster and help us to meet the needs of the next generation."

Mr Jenrick also wants to change the way developers contribute to the cost of building affordable housing and new infrastructure in every new project. The government will introduce a national charge for developers - replacing the existing Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy - to fund projects such as schools, roads and GP surgeries, and a fixed proportion of affordable homes in a development.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "This is a developers' charter, frankly, taking councils and communities out of it. And on affordable housing, which is the critical issue, it says nothing. In fact it removes the initiatives that were there for affordable housing."

Alan Jones, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects said: "While there's no doubt the planning system needs reform, these shameful proposals do almost nothing to guarantee the delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes." He said that taken together with moves to allow more commercial premises to be converted into homes without planning permission, "there's every chance they could also lead to the creation of the next generation of slum housing".

Mr Jenrick said such criticism was "complete nonsense", insisting that "design and quality" were central to the government's plans.

BBC Political Correspondent Jessica Parker said there was disquiet on the Conservative benches about the government's proposals, with one MP predicting "quite a battle" on the issue. Conservative MP Geoffrey Clifton Brown, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "Whilst I'm all in favour of building more houses, they need to be good quality houses, we've got to be really sure we're not building slums of tomorrow by building today at low quality."

But the Cotswolds MP added that people in areas like his now realised more homes needed to be built so "their children and their grandchildren" can get on the housing ladder.

Frontline Messages

Yesterday saw a surprising jump in viewing figures for a Sunday and I'm mystified as to the reason. Twitter may have played a part as over time I've been increasingly aware that posting pithy reflective soundbites from blog contributions seems to drive extra interest and hence traffic. All very obvious to marketing strategists I suppose, but still somewhat novel to my prosaic world of public service. 

Maybe it's all to do with the science of 'nudge theory' even though I gather it's neither a science nor theory. Anyway, it seems to work and as I've already remarked, regular reader 'Getafix is very adept at supplying 'Twitter-ready' soundbites such as the following, 'liked' and retweeted many times yesterday:-

"The large numbers of prisoners that are now being released homeless reminds me just how vague and abstract the concept of rehabilitation has become. Building more prisons to help with rehabilitation. Reshaping probation to help with rehabilitation. How? Where? When? The word rehabilitation has become an insert into a verbal phrase designed to sound positive, but has no real meaning or context anymore. It's become a soundbite. I think it's time the State defined what it actually means when it talks of offender rehabilitation, because I for one haven't a clue anymore." 

--oo00oo--

Not a 'soundbite' as such, but I want to highlight the following heartfelt contribution on the subject of housing which certainly reflects my own thoughts and experience over the years. I well remember being outraged when my local Housing Authority proudly announced in the 1990's that police officers were being seconded to their allocations team in order to ensure only 'suitable' people were offered housing. I would remind readers that in those days an independent Probation Service was able to set up its own housing projects in order to address such social policy failures. Of course this is not possible nowadays under direct civil service command and control:-   

"The UK takes a capitalist approach to housing, and that saddens me; in the UK if you cannot "afford" a house, then frankly you can't have one. Landlords, second home owners, people renting rooms have all profited - the system is so skewed in favour of landlords who ask for ridiculous sums of money up front, incentives, rent deposits, month up front, and when they sell the house having done nothing to earn it, they throw the tenants out, who have to start the whole cycle again.

In my world housing would be a basic human right - in the UK we have voted in countless Tory majority governments and this is the price of that.

Housing service users has been the biggest bane of my probation life from the start, i.e. for decades. Legislation only requires local authorities to house those "in priority need" and the rest scrabble around trying to get what they can, with immense pressure put on the probation officer who has no access to houses and no money to pay for them. If an AP manager asks me again "what have you done about X or Y's move on" once again I swear I will throw the phone across town into their face. Local authorities use risk as a get out clause all the time NOT to house people (who are not priority need), whether it be they are "too risky" or "not risky enough". The single young men who have no family are usually in the most dire straits.

The Probation service whether it be the Trusts or NPS have known about this problem for years. It is by far and away the BIGGEST issue as reported by service users themselves in countless "offender surveys" year after year - they don't advertise the results of this, despite putting immense pressure on us to get near 100% completion rate of that damn survey year after year.

And yet despite this the MoJ wasted vast amounts of money on a "through the gate" service which essentially gets armies of staff filling out the OASYS BCS identifying issues with housing, benefits, lack of ID, lack of bank account, with little time/incentive and certainly no money to actually sort the issues out.

If the MoJ gave that cash to the probation officers/service users to pay for deposits/rent in advance, it would free up SO MUCH time, create far less stress, and lead to outcomes - but nope, for the past 7 years it has preferred the Through the Gate staff to spend their time form filling. I'm disgusted and yet know in my heart of heart the service can’t or won't listen because we have a government that does not think that anyone, let alone someone who lost their housing due to their own offending, should have a right to the basic human right of a place to live."

Slow Sunday

With Parliament having packed up for the summer and the Transport Minister embarrassingly caught out by his own department changing the rules after heading off to Spain, I guess covid notwithstanding, we are now technically in the silly season:-  

Definition of silly season. 1 : a period (such as late summer) when the mass media often focus on trivial or frivolous matters for lack of major news stories. 2 : a period marked by frivolous, outlandish, or illogical activity or behaviour.

Homelessness is most definitely never a frivolous matter, but this BBC news item is somewhat recycled from a couple of weeks ago and even blogs are sometimes stuck for something new to say:- 

Nearly 200 released sex offenders had nowhere to live

Almost 200 sex offenders were released from prison in England and Wales in one year without having anywhere to live, Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures show. More than 100 of them were classed as posing a "high" or "very high" risk to the public. Probation inspectors have warned that freed prisoners who sleep rough are more likely to commit further crimes.

The Probation Service said it worked closely with local councils to help those leaving prison.

The figures, for England and Wales in 2018-19, were supplied by the MoJ under the Freedom of Information Act. They show that on 68 occasions "high and very high risk" sex offenders, who were on licence for more than six months, had no accommodation on release. A further 53 homelessness cases involved "high risk" sex offenders with a licence period of more than 12 months, and 70 involved "medium risk" sex offenders with more than six months on licence.

Earlier this month, the chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell, criticised the lack of a "cross-government" approach to housing offenders, pointing out that prisoners with no settled accommodation were almost twice as likely to be sent back to jail within 12 months of release.

In an inspection report, he blamed the problem on:

• housing shortages
• high up-front rental costs
• low-priority on housing registers
• lack of support services
• benefit delays
• "providers averse to accommodating people with substantial criminal records"

Mr Russell said: "We were particularly disturbed by the high numbers of higher-risk prisoners being released into homelessness or unsettled accommodation." The report found that in 2018-19 at least 22% of prisoners presenting the highest risk to the public were homeless or had nowhere stable to stay, amounting to 6,515 individuals.

In total, there were 11,435 occasions when prisoners were homeless when they were let out - 16% of released male offenders and 18% of female inmates.

The Probation Service, which is part of the MoJ, said the figures for sex offenders showed accommodation on the day of release and did not necessarily mean they "remained homeless afterwards". It says it has introduced new teams dedicated to finding housing, and is increasing places in "approved premises", also known as "bail hostels" or "probation hostels". It adds that it has helped "hundreds of offenders" stay off the streets as part of the Government's Rough Sleeping Strategy.

A spokesperson said: "Public protection is our number one priority. Sex offenders on licence must report regularly to their probation officer and abide by strict conditions which if breached can see them go back to prison."

During the coronavirus lockdown, BBC News discovered that 142 prisoners were put up in hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation to limit the spread of Covid-19.

Whatever Happened to TTG?

Every probation officer that has ever been has known a very basic fact of life and that is nothing will work if someone doesn't have a settled place to live. It's not rocket science and during all the excitement of TR we all remember that TTG would supposedly deliver accommodation to every prison leaver. All bollocks of course, but Grayling promised it. 

It all makes me very angry because I know that under the old-style Probation Service regime, every Service developed housing projects often in partnership with a range of local organisations. This and much more was all destroyed by Grayling in the name of political ideology and the smoke and mirrors of TR and TTG.  

So here we are some seven years later, on the eve of yet another probation reorganisation and the latest HMI report confirms that many people leaving prison have nowhere to live:-

Foreword 

Having somewhere safe to live that one can call home is a basic human need. Without this it is difficult for probation to manage individuals safely or do effective rehabilitative work. Many individuals go into prison homeless and even more leave with nowhere to live; and the enhancement of Through the Gate services has yet to make any difference to the numbers in settled accommodation. The result is that those who are released homeless are significantly more likely to go on to reoffend and to return to prison. In the sample of cases we looked at, the proportion of service users recalled or resentenced to custody within 12 months of release was almost double for those without settled accommodation. There is currently no cross-government approach to housing offenders, which is needed to set accommodation in the context of a broader strategy to reduce reoffending. It is encouraging that Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has recently established a directorate to develop strategic work on accommodation, and we look forward to seeing improvements in service delivery. 

There are many barriers for individuals supervised by probation services to obtaining suitable, settled accommodation. These include a shortage of housing stock, delays in obtaining benefits, high up-front costs of renting, low priority on housing registers, insufficient support services, and providers who are averse to accommodating people with substantial criminal records. We were particularly disturbed by the high numbers of higher-risk prisoners being released into homelessness or unsettled accommodation. At least 22 per cent of NPS cases, by definition the highest risk individuals in the probation caseload, were released from prison without stable accommodation in 2018-2019 – equivalent to 6,515 individuals. And only 75 per cent of individuals supervised by the NPS were in settled accommodation 12 months after release.

Since the ending of the Supporting People programme, the availability of specialist supported accommodation and floating support services for offenders has greatly reduced. The scale of the challenge of assisting individuals to obtain and retain settled and suitable accommodation is huge, given the shortage of accommodation and the many barriers service users face, and requires considerable attention and resources in order to make progress. It also requires stronger partnerships at national and local levels to address the needs of homeless offenders. The separate structures of the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) have weakened partnership work at local level; there is now an opportunity with the forthcoming unified model of offender management to ensure that this is resourced appropriately. 

Many prisoners are released from prisons that are not local to where they have lived. Design of resettlement services should form a bridge between the accommodation services available in the community and the accommodation tasks that can be delivered in custody. Many of those released homeless are serving very short prison sentences and were homeless prior to sentence. They require accommodation with support either as an alternative to prison or immediately on release, commissioned nationally or in partnership with local authorities. Housing authorities are improving the advice and assistance given to the homeless; future probation commissioning should focus on expanding access to housing and support to enable individuals to settle in accommodation. 

We found a few examples of where CRCs had established innovative relationships with accommodation providers, expanding access to good-quality accommodation. There were also promising examples of the NPS co-commissioning accommodation and achieving successful outcomes. A strategic approach to identifying and building on effective practice in this area is needed.

Many service users felt that probation services were unable to help them with their accommodation problems. Probation practitioners lack specific training in housing legislation and guidance, and pathways for enabling individuals to progress into settled accommodation are unclear. Many service users commented on the poor quality of the accommodation or felt unsafe where they were placed. Guidance for practitioners is needed on acceptable standards for accommodation placements. Finding and keeping somewhere safe to live is emotionally draining. Knowledgeable practitioners, in association with homelessness services, can guide and support individuals as they make these difficult journeys, providing motivation and encouragement to enable individuals to succeed. 

Justin Russell 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

This from the Guardian:-

Thousands of high-risk offenders in UK 'freed into homelessness'

Thousands of high-risk convicted criminals, including those classed as violent and sexual offenders, were being released from prison in England into homelessness, increasing the likelihood of their reoffending, inspectors warned.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) said in a report that it was “particularly disturbed” to find that at least 3,713 people supervised by the National Probation Service, which is responsible for high-risk offenders, had left prison and become homeless from 2018 to 2019. Ministry of Justice figures show 11,435 people were released from prison into homelessness in 2018-19, and 4,742 homeless people started community sentences in the same period. The inspectors said this widespread homelessness was jeopardising the rehabilitation of offenders.

The chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell, said the case of the serial rapist Joseph McCann highlighted the importance of appropriate housing for high-risk offenders. The probation services had been unable to find McCann a bed in approved premises on two occasions and he had ended up in unsuitable housing that did not facilitate close monitoring and management.

Russell said: “Many individuals are homeless when they enter prison and even more are when they leave. Individuals need a safe place to call home, it gives them a solid foundation on which to build crime-free lives. It is difficult for probation services to protect the public and support rehabilitation if individuals are not in stable accommodation. A stable address helps individuals to resettle back into the community, to find work, open a bank account, claim benefits and access local services.”

Russell has called for the Ministry of Justice, and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a national cross-government strategy addressing the housing needs of offenders.

In all, 116 offenders released from prison were studied for the inspection report on accommodation and support for adult offenders in the community and on release from prison in England. Twelve months later 17% were found to be still homeless and a further 15% remained in unsettled accommodation. For former prisoners released to settled accommodation, the number of those recalled or re-sentenced to custody was almost half that of those who did not have such accommodation upon release, the report said.

Many offender-specific schemes have closed or been merged with generic homelessness services where higher-risk individuals, such as those with convictions for sexual offences or arson, were less likely to be accepted, the inspectors said. The report warns of “many substantial barriers to obtaining settled accommodation” for offenders.

HMIP said that most offenders did not have priority on the housing register, and some were excluded because of previous behaviour, rent arrears, being classed as “intentionally homeless”, or being without a local connection, while some social housing providers excluded “risky” service users.

“Overwhelmingly, we heard from service users that homelessness is tough, it is mentally and physically draining, often coexisting with similarly draining issues such as substance misuse and mental ill-health. We heard how some find it easier to be in prison than navigate housing services following release,” the report says.

The shadow justice secretary, David Lammy, said: “By failing to provide adequate housing, the government is setting up former offenders to fail. It is inevitable that some released from prison will fall back into crime if they have no option but to live on the streets. This creates more victims of crime, as well as greater expense to the tax payer as they end up back in prison. To break the cycle of re-offence for former prisoners, the government urgently needs to address the housing crisis, as well as re-investing in a proper, publicly-funded probation service.”

The inspectors visited probation services in Northamptonshire, Cleveland, London, and Essex, across both publicly-run and privately-run providers.

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “No amount of good work in prison will achieve rehabilitation if the basics of support after release are ignored. If the government is serious about both rehabilitation and public protection it must take this opportunity to invest in a coherent plan. Spending billions on new prisons but peanuts on accommodation for the people they release is obviously futile.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Having a safe and secure place to live is a crucial factor in cutting reoffending, and the probation service works closely with councils to fulfil its duty to help prison leavers into stable accommodation. Since this review we have also introduced new teams dedicated to finding housing, are increasing spaces in approved premises, and our £6.4m pilot – part of the government’s rough sleeping strategy – has helped hundreds of offenders stay off the streets. We are also reviewing our referral process to help prevent homelessness.”