Where Did It All Go Wrong?

It's a sobering thought to reflect that it all started to go wrong for probation just as I arrived on the scene as a fresh-faced 'unconfirmed' officer. I qualified with a degree and CQSW in 1985, a year after the government published their Statement of National Objectives and Priorities (SNOP) for the Service. It took the Thatcher government a long time to get around to us, but looking back on it now and with the benefit of hindsight, it signalled the beginning of our demise. Haven't we done well to last this long?

Sadly SNOP represented a brand new way of doing government and it's continued ever since. As this Hansard report of proceedings in the House of Lords demonstrates, a number of wise Peers could see trouble ahead for us and in effect began the campaign to try and preserve the integrity of the Probation Service that continues to this day. Opening proceedings was Lord Wells-Pestell, a former probation officer, and reading the transcript some 30 years later, it contains some ominously familiar themes:- 

"I am concerned—and I want to say this as nicely as I can: I do not want to be considered offensive in any way—about the competence of those at the Home Office who are responsible for the statement of objectives and priorities, who probably have had no practical experience at all of being a probation officer. 
I know that the noble Lord the Minister is going to tell me that they had the experience of probation inspectors. They had that experience, but it is a very different thing, when you come to prepare and write a memorandum, to do it after discussion with some people who have worked in the field if you yourself have had no practical experience."

The debate is well worth reading in full as it canters over all the main issues of the time ranging from the lack of a plan, training, report writing, salaries, management and much more. There is even a contribution from the great Lord Longford before the Under Secretary of State rises and amongst other things introduces this very familiar sounding notion:-  

"In future we shall be expecting the probation service to concentrate on making the most effective use of the resources which it has already. It must expect to meet increased demand for its services by more efficient and economical use of its existing manpower and facilities. In addition, a basis was needed for the application to the probation service of the Government's financial management initiative. The intention is to ensure that the 80 per cent. grant we pay on the probation service is related to clear objectives and is securing value for money. There can be no objection to getting more for the same amount of cash."


So what did SNOP bring to the probation party? Why joy of joys, bureaucratisation  and managerialism. Just for a moment allow yourself to daydream as to what your world would be like without these two expensive innovations. I'm fortunate in that I can remember. Happily it all took a long time to reach my particular probation neck-of-the-woods as my office was both geographically and managerially distant from from Head Office. In fact the joke was that we belonged to a neighbouring Service. 

We just carried on democratically deciding our own local policy for years, with the SPO being an equal participant in lively team discussions. In those days we had almost complete discretion and just followed our nose. This is from recent correspondence and utterly typical in my experience:-

"he was a Programme manager and when we had a treatment manager appointed to the team - she commented that he often did not stick to the rule book - I replied that he did not know there was a rule book!!! He just did what he thought was right - a really old style senior rather than a manager."

As usual the internet has thrown up an interesting essay on the subject by author unknown, but I hope they will forgive my quoting from it:- 

According to McWilliams (1992) the arrival of management into the NPS is a recent concept within the organisations development. Up until then he believed that the service had operated under a ‘professional-administrative model,’ yet the recommendations of the Butterworth report (1972) included the need for planning and control – and thus the era of management began. This shift largely occurred through Martinson’s proclamation that Nothing Works (1974). However it is important at this stage to differentiate between the concepts of management and managerialism. The former, in the traditional sense, refers to the ‘balancing and direction of resources to achieve certain intents.’ Managerialism on the other hand refers to the ‘implementation of a variety of techniques…..within a culture of cost efficiency and service effectiveness.’ (James & Raine 1998). It is therefore the concept of managerialism which, under the guise that public services including the NPS, should be run like a business (Clarke 1994) became the transformational force for reform.

So, the inexorable march of management, ably assisted by that essential tool for any command and control structure, the bloody computer, has got us to where we are now. Just a few months away from privatisation and ultimate demise.

Sign the No10 petition here. 

Failure Means Success

There are two types of people for whom the ability to positively reframe any situation is essential to their work - politicians and probation officers. The recent Eastleigh by-election provides us with a good example of the former. The Tories didn't win, 'but were only a thousand votes behind UKIP'. Labour didn't win 'but this is Hampshire FFS! UKIP didn't win 'but they nearly did'.

When your client has screwed-up for the third time and another SDR is required, you might note sagely, as I have done on many occasions, 'clearly Mr X does not always act in his own best interests.' Well, until I read Russell Webster's recent piece on Payment by Results and what the prospects were for it's successful roll-out by the MoJ for privatising the Probation Service, I hadn't appreciated that failure might actually be termed success. 

How stupid and naive of me. The notion just needs a bit of positive reframing, as we see here from an expert in the field Frank Curran of SP Solutions commenting firstly on the Work Programme:- 

 I’m a long way from being an expert on employment programmes but there clearly are all sorts of issues both with the design of the Work Programme payment structure and the performance of the primes in delivering on their contracts – a headline performance less than the assumed deadweight is, on the face of it, quite dreadful. However one feature of PbR that I’ve not seen elaborated on anywhere in this context is that the amount of money paid to the primes must be far less than it would have been had the primes been more effective (the contracts after all had up to 80% PbR component). In other words PbR has not incentivised better outcomes as was hoped but it has meant that the state has not borne the full cost of service failure. This is the other side of the risk transfer issue and whilst it is a small mercy ( we would all much rather see the primes being effective and getting people into work after all) it can be seen as part-vindication of the PbR approach – the programmes failed but at least we didn’t have to pay their full cost.

Wow! I don't know about you, but I needed to read that a couple of times before the significance sank in - the programmes failed, but at least we didn't have to pay their full cost! But hang on a minute, aren't these contractors being funded in addition to the Job Centre staff? Anyway, he goes on to speculate how PbR might be regarded in relation to privatising probation:-

 In this context it seems to me that the critical issue in whether or not the approach being adopted with probation will work is how much it is possible to improve on current probation performance. There is a widespread, if largely implicit view, that it's not possible to significantly improve compliance/re-offending rates. If this is true then any organisation would be foolish to commit to a contract with a significant PbR component because the likelihood of failure is pretty high; if it is not true (ie it is possible to significantly improve performance) then a contract with a significant PbR component may be attractive (provided the metrics are right etc). In reality this is very difficult to know with confidence: therefore given the likely focus on price within the process the safest strategy for a contractor to adopt is to aim to deliver the same outcomes (or even maybe worse outcomes) at much less cost – anything else is too risky. In this scenario the state ends up paying less money for the same or worse outcomes (which is what seems to have happened with the Work Programme) which can still be viewed, I suppose, as a positive outcome for the state. However for those who believe that PbR has the potential to drive major improvements in reducing recidivism this outcome would be a grave disappointment.

So, according to this expert, there's a good chance the Rehabilitation Revolution will result in the same or worse outcomes, but at less cost to the state "which can still be viewed, I suppose, as a positive outcome for the state."  

Lets be absolutely clear here. The above reasoning forms part of an assessment by an insider on the case to be made for breaking up a skilled, professional and well-performing public service, on the off chance the result might be worse or no better than now, but at least it will be cheaper. Is that really what we want our public services to aspire to under private operation?

Sign the No10 petition here. 

Soft Soap from Minister

Just one of the small problems the MoJ has in trying to get the privatisation of probation to work under a Payment by Result system is the very annoying fact that released prisoners sometimes move. This topic came up at the stakeholder event I attended with potential bidders for 'through the gate' services becoming increasingly vexed at how they were to be paid if the client moved away?

The civil servants were scratching their heads, whilst some of us just shook our heads in disbelief, but the minister has come up with a very simple answer - they won't be allowed to move! When Chris Grayling gave evidence to the Justice Affairs Select Committee the other day, as reported here in the Guardian, he told them:- 

Newly released prisoners will be banned from moving around the country when they leave jail to ensure they complete rehabilitation programmes, Chris Grayling has told MPs.

The justice secretary said tougher conditions would be imposed on released prisoners from short sentences so that they could not "move 200 miles up the road for no reason".

He justified the move saying the current situation was "quite chaotic", with newly released prisoners moving around the country fuelling stubbornly high reoffending rates. "I do not think that anybody who has come out of prison and is subject to a supervision arrangement should be free to up sticks and move somewhere else," said Grayling after a Commons evidence hearing.

Oh minister, if only things in life were that simple! I think it's probably best we just let him find out for himself what the practicalities are of trying to impose such a condition, not so clients can complete their rehabilitation courses, but rather so the contractors can get paid. Of course that's a recurring theme in this whole daft idea. Never mind all the practical issues of trying to put in place a home, a job, drug and alcohol treatment etc for each released prisoner, it's actually all about a bloody payment and audit trail.

Amazingly he said there was no point in continuing to wait for the outcomes of the HMP Peterborough and HMP Doncaster 'through the gate' trials because it would take far too long. Much better then to just roll it out nationwide and hope for the best. In fact a bit like the Work Programme he introduced when he was at the Department of Work and Pensions. Presumably he could not see the irony of mentioning that the scheme had only taken a year and 18 days to set up and as we all know, has subsequently proved to be a roaring success.

The minister appeared to be in full 'soft soap' mode by this time:- 

He said he wanted to learn some of the lessons of the Work Programme, which is designed to get the unemployed into work and which he set up in only one year and 18 days. In particular he wanted to ensure that smaller voluntary organisations took a more commercial approach and did not sign up to deals that meant they actually lost money.

The justice secretary also said big companies would not win the contracts to supervise and mentor medium and low-risk offenders simply by putting in the lowest bids – they would also have to provide their own expertise and skills.

In the face of questions from MPs about the dynamic nature of offenders and how somebody designated "low-risk" can quickly turn into a high risk to the public, Grayling said it would be up to small probation "public protection teams" to monitor when the supervision of an offender should be brought back under public control.

He also confirmed that a 100% system of "payment by results" would not be used in the mentoring and supervision of offenders. Part of it would have to be free to recognise that the sentence of a court was being carried out. Work was still ongoing on how payment by results would work in practice, with questions of how out-of-court disposals such as cautions would affect payments yet to be decided.

The justice secretary also indicated there would be safeguards to prevent private companies and the voluntary sector simply "creaming and parking" the offenders less likely to respond to rehabilitation.

That's all ok then!

Sign the No10 petition here.

Sentence Planning

I thought I'd have a rest from trying to point out how misguided government plans are for the Probation Service and instead give a plug to a new business. There can't be many twitter followers of Ben Gunn who aren't aware, but others might be interested to know that in true entrepreneurial-style Ben has decided to market his services through his own business 'Mokurai Consulting'.

For someone so keen on self-publicity, I'm not entirely sure how appropriate the translated zen name is - Silent Thunder - but you've got to hand it to him, since release he's clearly decided not to let the grass grow under his feet. I admire him for both making use of his knowledge and experience and for making up lost time. 

Unashamedly making use of the appropriate Gunn Clan motto Aut Pax Aut Bellam 'Either Peace or War', and badge, Ben certainly looks ready to take on all-comers willing to either request or pay for his particular services. In addition to the offer of training and talks, I see that he's moving into a new area, that of giving advice on Parole and Sentence Strategy. He explains:- 

Having found and made every mistake available to a prisoner in Sentence Planning process, Ben offers the cutting-edge insights that equip prisoners to navigate through the demands of the prison system, minimising the length of sentence to be served and with the least inconvenience to the prisoner and his family.

Parole Boards are often treated by legal advisors as discrete events, to be dealt with as a tick-box exercise to please the Board. Ben adopts a broader view, encompassing all aspects of the prisoner’s sentence and life experience and planning a parole strategy that provides the best chance to neutralise the negative views of prison reports and parole board expectations.

Don't you just love that bit about "minimising the length of sentence to be served and with the least inconvenience to the prisoner and his family"  and "planning a parole strategy that provides the best chance to neutralise the negative views of prison reports and parole expectations." Bring it on Ben!

Sign the No10 petition here.  

The Tide is Turning

Which ever way you look, the tide seems to be turning rapidly on that wonder panacea for delivering public services called Payment by Results. Well I say everywhere. Not the vast industry that's sprung up, keen to separate the government from vast sums of taxpayers money obviously. Having made a mint from the Work Programme, they are very keen for it to expand into new areas such as probation and it just remains for the easily-led politicians to be convinced that the idea is basically crap.

I said a couple of days ago that if aspirational senior civil servants wished to advance their careers, they'd do well to find another way of delivering the Rehabilitation Revolution. The trick of course is to find a way of doing it that both extricates their hapless ministers from a corner they've painted themselves into and that looks like a better solution.

The really skillful will give it the illusion of offering even better value for money, greater protection for the public, all whilst delivering an improved service. Obviously not a u-turn, but evidence of a highly thoughtful politician who responds to constructive alternative ideas. Well the scene is being set because here we have an insight into what those very influential civil servants think of PbR over at the Treasury and Cabinet Office. The guys who control the money and the political direction of travel. I think the piece on the Public Service website is worth quoting in full:- 

Whitehall cooling on payment by results

22 February 2013 
Central government's enthusiasm for commissioning public service delivery through payment by results contracts is cooling, according to senior figures at the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.

The National Audit Office's annual conference heard that there was growing scepticism over whether the tariff-based mechanism could deliver the efficiency savings ministers envisaged.

The Ministry of Justice recently adopted it for probation services delivered through external providers. The Depart­ment for Work and Pensions is also using the system within its Work Pro­gramme, despite controversy over data manipulation by one of the largest contractors.

Katharine Davidson, executive director for strategy at the Cabinet Office's Efficiency and Reform Group, told delegates: "We were very bullish on payment by results contracts at the start, (but) the more we know about the quality of the input information and the inability to link it to outcomes, we in the ERG have taken a more measured view of them.

"Payment by results will only work if you have a really good grasp of the results, but we have focused almost entirely on inputs and even that has not gone far enough."

Sharon White, the director general for public services at the Treasury, also expressed doubts about the system.
White said: "We take a pragmatic view of whether payment by results works. It is quite hard to get a firm handle on the numbers.

"We have now got a situation at the Ministry of Justice where Chris Grayling… is going to take a payment by results approach to almost the whole of probation. But some of us who have been around a long time get very nervous about panaceas."

She added: "We're taking a very cautious approach on whether this is going to deliver better value for money compared to direct public spending intervention."

If that wasn't bad enough, just look what Liz Calderbank, HM Chief Inspector of Probation thinks of PbR and risk in her general response to the consultation:-

"The interface between the dynamic management of risk of harm and the PbR model, 

with its focus on reducing reoffending, in our view creates an inherent tension. We 

do not believe that this tension can be successfully managed within the framework 

proposed. Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and 

private sector providers will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased 

risk to the public. The need for clarity about roles and responsibilities is a key issue 

in the management of risk, as was demonstrated by our investigation into the cases 

of Hanson and White in 2006."

Her forthright letter is a clear warning about the risks involved and serves to add significant weight to a very similar view expressed by the union and professional body NAPO. It will be very interesting indeed to see what Mr Grayling has to say when he appears before the House of Commons Select Committee later this morning.

Sign the petition here.

Does Probation Work?

At various times the question has been put to me 'does probation work?' It's no good giving a trite 'yes' because that will just beg the next question 'how do you know?' A trite 'no' on the other hand would be so depressing as to mean turning up for work each day would be impossible, well for me anyway. 

It's an important question, never more so than at the present time with the whole future of the Probation Service at stake. It's not helped by the fact that politicians only seem capable of dealing with issues in black and white terms. I think it's plainly obvious that the answer lies somewhere between the two and that's what I've always tried to explain. It will depend on each individuals circumstances and whether they are ready for change and receptive to help and advice.

As with all short questions, it's deceptively large in concept, in fact a bit like asking if education works? I didn't particularly shine at Secondary Modern School. Ok I was in the top stream and did moderately well, but if I'm honest I was pretty lazy. I seem to remember one school report observed dryly "James has two speeds: Dead slow and stop." I didn't apply myself, messed around and hence only obtained fairly mediocre exam results. 

For what ever reason, I wasn't ready to be able to get the most from education at that time. But I've never forgotten the teachers and their efforts at trying to educate and enlighten me, and I've always suspected it's the same with probation. For many our influence will not be immediate, but of the 'slow burn' sort. I think most PO's will at some time have had people come up to them and say something like 'Hi there - you won't remember me, but it's been x years since you wrote that report/had me on probation/supervised me on licence and now I'm married, got a job and been out of trouble' and with that they disappear.

With all this in mind, it was refreshing to come across some affirmation in this piece by academic Fergus McNeill on the Discovering Desistance website and in answer to questions put to him by the French Probation Service.  

According to desistance studies, which are the main factors that lead to stop criminal activity? 

Most reviews of the literature point to three main theoretical perspectives on desistance. The first draws on evidence about the relationships between crime and age. Noticing that crime is disproportionately a youthful activity – and that even persistent offenders seem to eventually ‘grow out’ of crime, these ‘ontogenic theories’ suggest that desistance can be explained in terms of age and the developing maturity that it usually brings.

The second perspective suggests that desistance can be best explained not by age and maturity per se, but rather by the changing social ties or social bonds that tend to come with adulthood. These ‘sociogenic’ perspectives point to evidence that desistance is correlated, for example, with securing meaningful employment, developing successful intimate relationships, investing in becoming a parent. People desist from crime because they acquire a stake in conformity.

The third perspective points not so much to the structural nature of these ‘turning points’ (linked to work or family life) but to the subjective dimensions of them. A new partner or a new job is more likely to provoke or support desistance if and only if the person values that new pro-social partner or that new job more than they value existing pro-criminal relationships or activities. These subjective dimensions take us into a consideration of how criminal identity can be cast off – and how new and more positive identities can become established. That process of ‘de-labelling’ – both by the person themselves and by those around them – seems to be especially important for people who have been involved in persistent offending, and whose criminalized identities are therefore more deeply entrenched.

Although they place the emphasis in different places, most desistance scholars now tend to agree that desistance can best be explained not from one of these three perspectives but by examining the interactions between these three sets of factors – age and maturity, social ties and identity transitions.

Does that mean that supervision of offenders by probation officers has only a minor effect on criminal careers?

No, I don’t think so. It is true that one of the most important studies of probation and desistance – discussed in Steve Farrall’s (2002) book ‘Rethinking What Works – suggested that probation had little direct impact on desistance, and that the individual’s motivation to desist and his or her social context seemed to matter more. But even then, Steve argued that probation could have positive indirect effects, for example, by working to develop motivation and by addressing social problems. Also, since 2002, Steve and his colleagues have conducted several follow-up studies on the same probation cases, and these studies now suggest that probation did a better job in terms of ‘sowing the seeds’ for future change that he first thought. This finding echoes something I discovered in a small study of people who had been on probation in Scotland in the 1960s. Looking back from the vantage point of 40 years later, several of those I interviewed recognised that probation had a significant and positive impact on their lives – but not always immediately. 

So the answer is yes - 'but not always immediately'.

Sign the No10 petition here.         

The Killing Zone

There are one or two stories from last week that I've neglected to pick up on due to my attention of necessity being focused upon the MoJ consultation exercise. In particular the Work Programme came under yet more critical scrutiny as the results of further research came to light on what effect the now infamous Payment by Results system was having. 

The research was carried out by the University of Birmingham Third Sector Research Centre and gave yet more confirmation of what actually goes on under PbR:- 

The study notes that ‘gaming’ – including creaming off those who are closest to the labour market, and ‘parking’ those who are hardest to help – is endemic within the programme. The research points to the overall lack of resource in the Programme and its structure and payment mechanisms, as the main reasons for this. Many providers in the study saw parking hard to help clients as a ‘rational response to payment by results’.

As this article from the Guardian graphically makes clear, the whole thing has been an utter disaster for many small third sector organisations:- 

The study cites a small private-sector provider which complained that big corporate providers, known as "primes", would keep "job-ready" customers for themselves while passing on more difficult cases to subcontractors. "It's not being PC but I'll just say it as it is … you tend to get left with the rubbish; people who aren't going to get a job … If the [prime] thought they could get them a job, they wouldn't [refer them to] someone else to get a job."

The design of the system meant that providers offering specialist services targeted niche groups, such as homeless people and ex-offenders. The suggestion is that the people in this category are regarded as such a risk that the primes simply "park" their cases and do not pass them down the chain at all. So charities providing specialist services for these candidates are often getting no referrals, putting them under financial pressure. One private sector interviewee described the market for customised interventions as "a washout": "Certainly for third sector providers that have a specialist niche, it's a killing zone."

All this behaviour by the 'primes' was utterly predictable of course and Richard Johnson writing in the Guardian should know because he used to run the Serco and Ingeus Welfare to Work contractors:-

This was evident from the outset, as soon as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) initiated the tendering process. Welfare-to-work companies either offered DWP untenable terms, and won, or went out of business. The organisations which offered no (or limited) discounts in the price competition of the tenders were those with substantial business elsewhere, notably G4S and Serco. Those who won the most contracts offered to do it cheapest.

Though the scant data that the DWP allows into the public domain two years on clearly indicate that overall performance is poor, and those who are the least job-ready are being ignored, the primes continue to call it all a big success.

Not surprisingly, this disaster has attracted the attention of Margaret Hodge and the Public Accounts Committee. Their report discussed here in another Guardian piece is about as damning as it is possible to imagine and raises the spectre of another Olympic security fiasco should one of the 'primes' fail:-

The programme was introduced in June 2011, at an estimated cost of between £3bn and £5bn over five years, but PAC said the performance in the first year or so fell well short of expectations.

Not one of the 18 providers met its contractual targets and their performance varied "wildly", the report found.

The MPs warned that, given the poor performance, there was a high risk that one or more providers would fail and go out of business or have their contracts cancelled.

"Given the poor performance across providers, there is a high risk that one or more will fail – either they will go out of business or the department will cancel their contracts," the report says. "The Department will need to keep a close eye on which providers are most likely to fail and must manage all consequential risks."

The report also reveals that all 18 organisations involved in the Work Programme, which include companies such as A4e and Ingeus Deloitte, have been placed on "performance improvement plans" and that in seven cases, organisations had been sent formal letters warning of unacceptable standards.

The next set of performance data will be published in March, which PAC said should give the DWP a better idea about companies that may go out of business or have contracts terminated, and urged the department to prepare specific contingency plans should failure occur.

Hodge said, that although the Work Programme was crucial, its performance "was so poor that it was actually worse than the department's own expectations of the number of people who would have found work if the programme didn't exist."

"None of the providers managed to meet their minimum performance targets. The best performing provider only moved 5% of people off benefits and into work, while the worst managed just 2%."

None of this looks too promising for a similar Payment by Result contracting scenario for probation does it? Primes not delivering and a 'killing zone' for the third sector. What amazes me is that faced with all this blindingly-obvious and damning evidence, the 'primes' continue to be bullish about their 'success' and the DWP says things will get better. It's utterly surreal. 

A DWP spokesperson said: "The Work Programme gives support to claimants for two years and it hasn't even been running that long yet, so it's still early days. We know the performance of our providers is improving … Long-term unemployment fell by 15,000 in the latest quarter."

Previous schemes, the department said, had paid out "too much up front regardless of success. But by paying providers for delivering results, the Work Programme is actually offering the taxpayer real value for money."

Kirsty McHugh, chief executive of the back to work industry body, the Employment Related Services Association, said, "The public accounts committee should rightly focus on the Work Programme achieving value for money for the taxpayer, and data published by ERSA shows that the Work Programme is the most cost effective scheme relative to any comparable scheme so far.

The No10 petition can be signed here.

Stop Digging

So it's all over. The entries are in. The runners and riders have let the MoJ know what they think about privatising most of the Probation Service and we await the result of the civil servants deliberations. I don't envy them their task as they try and avoid the potential for it all to become an omnishambles.

In many ways it's what they think about a project that's more important than the minister's concerned. As this article in the Spectator on the subject of the Universal Credit last September put it:-

Civil servants will not waste time or personal capital on anything likely to join the identity cards and the NHS supercomputer in the graveyard of ministerial follies.

That Universal Credit would run into problems was inevitable. Anything involving a massive computer system will throw up hideously complex problems, as any project manager will tell you.

Now as it happens, this particular grand plan for creating a commercial market in providing probation services must be underpinned by a secure computer system that works effectively - and there's not much chance of that happening any time soon. It must all make civil servants very unhappy indeed. In fact we know this as this recent piece in the Law Society Gazette explains:- 

Ministry of Justice staff lack confidence in the organisation’s leadership and ability to manage change, the civil service’s annual people survey has revealed.

The results show that 28% of staff had confidence in senior management and 32% said the department is managed well.

Less than a quarter (23%) of respondents said that change is well-managed, 18% said that where changes are made they are made for the better and only a third believed managers had a ‘clear vision’ for the future.

The survey shows evidence of poor staff morale. Only 31% of respondents would recommend it as a ‘great place to work’, 35% said they felt inspired to ‘do the best’ in their job and less than half (49%) were proud to work there.

Some say there is a war going on in Whitehall. In order to deflect criticism of the government, it looks as if there is a concerted effort under way to pass blame onto senior civil servants. There is much talk of the Service having to be reformed itself and the need for recruitment of yet more special advisers to effectively form a 'shadow' civil service.

The row is getting nasty with the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Gus O'Donnell speaking up and being angrily insulted by government in return. The essence of the argument seems to really be about who takes the blame for crap policy decisions? Andreas Whittam Smith writing in the Independent is clear. When you have inexperienced ministers, you require a mature and competent Civil Service to point out just how crap your ideas are. There comes a time when you have to stop digging.

The No10 petition can be found here.

PS the 38 degree petition on the Fire Service has now reached 93,695     

Grumpy Turning Angry

Regular readers will be aware that this blog is penned by a self-confessed grumpy probation officer, but I'm beginning to get angry now and feel the need to share my thoughts and reasoning lest I be regarded as having 'lost it.'

It started innocuously enough with an e-mail from 38 degrees informing me that the government were intent on privatising the - wait for it - Fire Service! Initially I thought it was a joke, or spam or April 1st, but no it's been quietly bubbling away for ages and I suspect like many other citizens, just hadn't noticed. It's been completely 'under my radar' and in any case, it's such a bloody stupid idea, surely no government would even consider it? - wrong! 

When I got researching, the 'red mist' began to descend. We know police forces are entering into contracts with the usual suspects like Serco and G4S for all kinds of tasks including investigating crime. Where I live we've got private firms running around with blue lights for the NHS, HM Dockyards are privately run, so is RAF fighter training, Aldermaston, Fylingdales, the Royal Train - the list just goes on and on and on. Why don't we just hand over the bloody keys to G4S, Serco and Capita now and have done with it? 

I suspect most citizens have no idea the extent to which the state has already been privatised. Noticing it, let alone trying to stop it is not easy because it's been incremental and done sneakily. Politicians of all hues seem to have got used to the idea that we're not noticing, and don't really care. Ok the search and rescue helicopter service privatisation didn't go ahead, but that was more due to cock-up than design. But just as we thought the matter was shelved, it turns out the government have been beavering away in secret on another scheme to be announced shortly.  

Increasingly, in what we laughably call a democracy, we have to rely on internet-based campaigning groups like 38 degrees to alert us and mobilise us. It worked when a powerful message went straight to government over selling-off our forests, and it looks like it's going to happen again over protecting a public Fire Service. 

When I received the e-mail three days ago, the petition stood at 33,319 signatures, but as I publish this post it has already risen to 86,734. An increase of 50,000 signatures in just a few days ably demonstrates the power of the internet, together with the strength of feeling on the subject. Any sensible politician should realise that the public mood is strongly supportive of key public services. They are just too important to mess around with, let alone consider privatising. (By way of comparison, the probation No10 petition is just approaching 20,000, a healthy figure, but one that has been achieved without 38 degree's involvement.) 

Of course the government doesn't call it privatisation - that's an emotive politically-toxic term. In the case of the Fire Service, the government prefers to talk about 'mutualisation.' Of course that has a familiar ring about it for us in the Probation Service.  Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, says:- 

“Mutuals end the old binary choice between state and privately run public services. This is about frontline staff taking control and having power to do their jobs how they know is best. Across the public sector thousands of employees are forming mutuals and taking control because they’re fed up with the wasteful bureaucracy imposed on them by the state and know they can do better. Cleveland Fire Brigade is exploring plans motivated entirely by their determination to protect and grow services for local people.”

Yes and that's just so much bullshit Francis! I'm pretty fed up only being able to cast a 'binary' cross on a bit of paper every few years. Can I remind him that hundreds of thousands of us ignored the 'binary' option at the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners, and opted instead for spoiling our ballot papers en masse. 

There is a powerful message for government here. There is increasing disillusionment with the present democratic structures and increasingly the citizenry will be turning to the likes of 38 degrees in order to flex collective muscle, free of the toxic involvement of party-political machinery. We need an urgent public debate about the appropriate boundaries between public and private delivery of key services.

And another thing! Don't think we've not noticed that MP's are now claiming more than ever before in expenses and in the process making us taxpayers pay for a ludicrously expensive and toothless bureaucracy to supposedly regulate them. Unbelievable I know, but there's even talk of voting themselves a massive pay rise. Well can I remind them of the oft-stated necessity for 'reform' of public services, especially at a time of constrained public expenditure. Remember - 'reform' means doing more for less! 

Lay off the Fire Service and lay off the Probation Service. You've been warned.

Sign the No10 petition here.
Sign the 38 degree Fire Service petition here.  

People Lie Behind Numbers

With impeccable timing, Liz Calderbank HM Chief Inspector of Probation has just published her report on the Service over the last 3 years. As consultation closes today on the government's plans for privatising most of the Probation Service, the verdict of the Inspectorate is broadly that  things are 'generally good.' No Service was felt to be failing, although there was a considerable range of performance from the worst to the best:- 

"The report reflects on much good work currently being undertaken with those who 
offend. It also reveals that some probation trusts are achieving a higher standard of 
work than others. Although the overall findings from the inspection were generally 
good, some aspects of work continue to require improvement. Further attention, for 
example, needs to be given to managing risk of harm to potential victims by all trusts 
and to those cases with child safeguarding concerns.

We were, however, particularly pleased to note that those subject to supervision had 
complied with their order and that interventions had been delivered in accordance 
with the requirements of the sentence in the large majority of cases. These results 
are indicative of the growing awareness now seen across probation trusts of the 
importance of engaging offenders in the supervision process. We will continue to 
explore the factors known to be associated with desistance in our next inspection 
programme as central to reducing reoffending."

I don't want to quote loads of figures, they are all in the report, but I thought it would be of interest to quote some case studies that both illustrate good practice and give a flavour of the diverse nature of our work:-

"Craig received a sentence of imprisonment for an offence of robbery. He had 
learning disabilities and following concerns about his mental health was ordered to 
stay in a secure hospital. His offender manager worked closely with health 
professionals to coordinate the work undertaken by each agency. She undertook 
regular hospital visits, including attendance at some ward rounds. In turn, hospital 
staff escorted Craig to his probation appointments where work was undertaken to 
tackle his offending. This approach meant that both his health needs and risk of 
harm to others were attended to, in a coordinated and complementary way. Craig 
was making good progress and there had been no further offending to date."


"Michael was undertaking a community order for an offence of damage to property. 
During meetings with his offender manager, Michael disclosed information that led 
his offender manager to believe that further offending against vulnerable adults may 
be taking place. His offender manager took swift action, including referring the case 
to MAPPA and taking Michael’s order back to court. The court added a requirement 
to the community order to include residence at approved premises in order to 
manage the risk of harm he posed. Whilst there, Michael was subject to additional 
restrictions on his activities, such as regular reporting to the approved premises staff 
every few hours during the day to reduce any opportunity to reoffend. This was a 
good example of the offender manager responding well to potential changes in the 
nature of risk of harm and of approved premises being used appropriately to control 
that harm."

"Sam was sentenced to a community order with a requirement to undertake an SOTP. 

During the PSR stage, he minimised his sexual offending. The offender manager 

ensured that he started the programme within five weeks of sentence. She 

developed a positive and supportive relationship with Sam and, as a consequence, 

he gradually disclosed the true nature of his behaviour in terms of his offence. Sam 

accepted full responsibility for his actions and engaged with specific one-to-one work 

where his offending behaviour was dissected and challenged. As a consequence, 

further disclosures were made about his sexual urges and impulses. Sam was 

reclassified as posing a very high risk of serious harm to others and procedures were

put in place to manage his risk."

There are many more examples in the report and it's refreshing to focus on real stories rather than just statistics. Unfortunately the same can't be said for yet another report from a right wing pressure group with a particular axe to grind. The Centre for Crime Prevention have recently published a report entitled 'The Failure of Revolving door Sentencing' which tries to make the case for locking up thousands more people than we already do. It's that tired old political mantra about prison working, so lets have loads more of it. 

There are pages and pages of figures in this report, but sadly little coherent sense. Thank goodness guys like this don't actually run anything important, but of course it's designed to whip up a storm in certain sections of the press, as here in the good old Daily Mail. Despite the dodgy arguments, politicians feel they have to respond to stuff like this and typically announce 'tougher' sentences. Criminal justice policy continues to be a game of political football, but at least the Probation Association have had a stab it rebutting it:-  

"Contrary to the Centre for Crime Prevention report, community sentences are cutting crime and preventing victims. Community sentences outperform short-term prison sentences and are 8.3% more effective in reducing one year proven re-offending rates. The statistics the Centre for Crime Prevention use may look dramatic but in reality they do not make a lot of sense. They show a lack of understanding of the role of sentences, prisons and probation. You cannot compare medium to long prison tariffs with community orders as sentencing guidelines wouldn’t allow them to be interchangeable sentences. It would also be extremely costly to the taxpayer if we sent all 240,000 people, of whom around 160,000 do not go on to re-offend, to prison for at least four years as their report suggests. A four year prison sentence would amount to £88,000, ten times the cost of a community sentence. What the public and victims really want to see is crime stop. Community sentences tackle the causes such as drug and alcohol addiction that lead to crime, and are effective with re-offending rates falling by an equivalent of 10 per cent since 2000."

For a thorough fresh look at the old community sentence versus prison argument I would recommend a new report by three academics on behalf of the Howard League. Entitled 'Intelligent Justice : Balancing the effects of community sentences and custody' it makes a refreshing and thoughtful read in stark contrast to some right-wing stuff of late:- 

"This paper begins by examining the perennial arguments around the efficacy of 
community sentencing over short spells in custody. An even-handed analysis 
concedes that the picture is not a simple one, and that indeed it is the very 
complexity of the problem that necessitates a value-based approach to penal policy.  
It suggests that any cost-benefit analysis must take into account the long term 
impact of dramatic increases in imprisonment, which bring with them increases in 
a number of social problems that themselves sow the seeds for future crime: be it 
family breakdown, drug and alcohol addiction or poor physical and mental health. 
In the United States for example, this has seen the creation of a system “that feeds 
upon itself” and which has left many individual states near bankruptcy."

"The authors conclude by asking for a new emphasis on not simply the prevention 
of reoffending through deterrence or incapacitation, but on constructing a penal 
system which seeks to encourage compliance with the law. This idea that people 
respond best when buying into behaviour such as abiding by the law, rather than 
being constantly compelled or cajoled into doing so, has powerful implications 
for future policymaking. It suggests, for example, that a narrow focus on paying 
providers by their results using the limited picture of reconviction rates may not 
be the best way to structure prisons and probation. It also suggests that an 
overweening focus on containing risk, essentially basing a system on a fear of 
failure, precludes redemptive narratives that promise more success in changing lives 
and reducing crime. Is the penal system to be based on unaffordable expansion 
and a fear of failure, or shall it live within its means and celebrate success? This is a 
question that must be answered sooner rather than later."

The No 10 petition can be signed here. 

PS Since posting I see that the CCP figures have been looked at by Factcheck here.