Monday, 8 May 2017

Reputation Matters

My attention has been drawn to this article in Management Today, interestingly under the subject heading of 'reputation matters'.

Inside Britain's Private Prisons Crisis

With low margins, a monopoly customer and volatile users, Britain's private jails are a tough business to run. Has the system reached breaking point?  

Few would choose to spend a day out at HMP Rye Hill, despite its bucolic location in open country close to the Oxford canal, south of Rugby. The category B prison isn't dramatically daunting in the way Dartmoor or Alcatraz are. Bland and low rise, it was built in 2001 and could pass for a low-cost, minor university campus if it weren't for the tall fences and miles of curled barbed wire. Nobody has escaped from Rye Hill since 2002 when a pair doing 10 years each made off hidden in the back of a delivery lorry. But that is about as close to Porridge as Rye Hill gets.

Since 2014, Rye Hill has exclusively housed sex offenders and there are currently 664 inmates (its operational capacity is 625). The prison's eight wings are named after celebrated rugby players: Beaumont, Carling, Davies, Edwards and so on. What makes Rye Hill additionally unusual is that it is run for profit. One of 14 private prisons out of a total estate of 124, Rye Hill makes an undisclosed margin for G4S, the global security outfit which built it under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

Once inside and relieved of all accessories except a notebook and pencil, one of the first things one notices is how old many of the inmates are. There are plenty of walking sticks and a few wheelchairs. The Crown Prosecution Service and the courts are currently processing large numbers of historic sex abuse cases - those involving Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall being two prominent examples - and lengthy custodial sentences are the norm. Twenty per cent of those inside are serving a life sentence. The oldest inmate is 92 and doing a seven-year stretch.

Also immediately apparent is the high proportion of prisoners with either a learning disability or suffering from poor mental health. Several arms I observed were covered with self-inflicted scars and G4S acknowledges that incidents of self-harm are up by one third over the last year. They have even had prisoners attempting to eat their own flesh. Everyone - staff and prisoners included - is dreading the impending introduction of the Ministry of Justice-imposed smoking ban.

I spoke at length to one inmate in his single cell. He was polite and quietly spoken and said he was just about coping at the beginning of a long sentence.

It's prison etiquette not to ask what an offender is in for unless the information is offered voluntarily. However, it did not surprise when Googling his name later to read the headline, 'Sex monster caged for over 25 years after catalogue of depravity.' His victims were both under the age of 13.

But that isn't unusual - 68% of Rye Hill's population have committed offences against children. The bleakest statistic of all at Rye Hill is that only 23% of the prisoners ever receive a visit from the outside. Such is the nature of their offences that they are ostracised not just by broader society but also very frequently by their own families themselves.

There are a number of specialist psychologists based here conducting sex offender treatment programmes. There is an extensive garden to maintain and prisoners also make hairnets for the catering industry and horse riders, plus parts for electrical suppliers.

Rye Hill's director - they don't call them governors in the private sector - is Richard Stedman. After joining from the public sector, he is the youngest head of a prison in the UK and one of G4S's rising stars. He admits his is a taxing and often unpleasant job, very closely monitored by two on-site Ministry of Justice officials: 'In terms of keeping your sanity you have to focus on the small victories,' he says. 'Dealing with self-harm on a daily basis, getting 664 of the most complex people in society through a day safely where nobody is hurt - we should celebrate that every day. It's not easy.'

G4S has suffered quite a battering, financially and reputationally, in recent months and years. First there was the disaster with the 2012 Olympics when it took on the security contract for the main sites and was, at the last minute, forced to call in the army to assist having failed to recruit enough security guards. A foul-up which cost it £88m, acres of bad press and its then-CEO Nick Buckles his job. Then, together with rival Serco, it was found to have charged HMG to tag offenders who were either dead or already in jail. G4S had to repay £109m and the Serious Fraud Office is still deliberating about whether to prosecute.

Then before Christmas last year its staff lost control of HMP Birmingham, which it runs. During 12 hours of violent havoc, four wings were taken over, fires started and medical supplies ransacked. In March, one of G4S's young prison officers at HMP Oakhill was savagely beaten by a group of teenage inmates. The attack left the 21-year-old in a coma after he attempted to stop one of his assailants climbing a fence.

There are easier ways to make a living. The riot at Birmingham has probably cost G4S more than £2m once the 'Tornado Team' riot squad has been paid for, all the locks changed and the whole place rewired because they flooded the electrics.

There are three companies operating private prisons in the UK: G4S, Serco and Sodexo. All are struggling with the same fundamental problems. The whole prison estate is hopelessly overcrowded, housing 84,874 inmates today, a figure which has risen twofold from 44,975 in 1990. In December 2016, 80 out of the 124 total were past 100% capacity and 18 more were past 95% capacity. Last year saw the highest recorded number of suicides in English and Welsh prisons - more than 100 - and there has been a rise of one third in assaults on officers. But it seems we just can't stop locking more and more people up.

At the same time, austerity has taken its toll on staff numbers: in 2000 there was one officer for every 2.9 prisoners; now it's one for every 5.3. New recruits are currently being urgently sought. A recent BBC Panorama undercover expose of HMP Northumberland, run by Sodexo, showed an institution out of control with widespread drug taking and prisoners calling the shots.

(Incidentally, the suggestion that most of these new psychoactive substances, such as 'Spice', are regularly flown over the walls by drone is mythical. Far more common routes of entry are via visiting family members or corrupt prison officers.) Private prisons are a dysfunctional marketplace containing unhappy customers and providers. It doesn't work for any 'stakeholders', even the users.

Contracting out prisons to the private sector began back in the Thatcher era. Julian Le Vay, the former finance director of the prison service, recalls that a free-market ideology for the provision of criminal justice services was inspired by the example of the United States. 'In 1990 one of our biggest prisons in Manchester (Strangeways) had been completely taken over by prisoners and was held by them for a month while they slowly demolished it and gave the authorities the benefit of their views. Why? Well, there were tens of thousands of prisoners locked up 23 hours a day in overcrowded cells with only a bucket in the corner for a toilet.

'The rather weak management of that time allowed a powerful and anarchic and reactionary trade union (the Prison Officers Association) to effectively take decisions in prisons particularly on staffing. So even some liberal reformers were persuaded it might be better to let the private sector show what it could do because the public sector seemed incapable.'

After initial resistance while in opposition, New Labour took on the concept with alacrity after 1997. The private sector built prisons in half the time at half the cost. By use of the PFI, the huge capital costs were spread over the contract life, 'like putting your new car on a credit card'. Le Vay acknowledges that it's a very odd market that contains three companies whose customer is also their main competitor. No new provider has emerged for the last 20 years. Bidding for contracts is sporadic and costs half a million a time. Contracts are massively detailed containing, for example, hefty fines for each time a door is left unlocked.

It results, says Le Vay, in a 'rather unhealthy degree of co-dependency between the two ... one chief executive put it to me that HMG is "the customer from hell". Slow, indecisive, often rather unclear what it really wants, no long-term plan at all and liable to cancel everything as soon as you get your bid going. Out of 14 market tests - that's where the government offered an existing prison for competition - 11 were cancelled in mid-bid.' There is no true market that could bring further innovation because there is no competition. So reform is down to the customer, but although the MOJ is buying a service with which it's consistently dissatisfied, it is too timid to try anything really new.

Serco's high-profile CEO Rupert Soames was parachuted in from Aggreko, to help the outsourcer recover from a tail-spin of scandals, which had caused its share price to plummet. Soames's grandfather Winston Churchill, once a home secretary, had something to say about prisons, namely that 'the treatment of criminals is the mark and measure of the stored-up strength of a nation'. It remains in the Serco custody officer training manual.

'It's also the mark and measure of society to stand up against those who would have us believe that prison should be a really cruel and horrible experience,' notes Soames in a comment which is almost certainly aimed at the Ministry of Justice's newspaper of forced choice The Daily Mail. 'As a service it is something that is profoundly worthwhile to do. Another Churchill quote was made during the war when he said that there is no finer investment than putting milk into babies. And I would say there is no better investment than to stop people who have gone to prison coming back in again.'

People have been arguing about both the morality and efficacy of imprisonment for as long as society has been locking its miscreants up. To top all this off, one of the main justifications for imprisoning individuals in the first place - to attempt to rehabilitate them - is failing. The reoffending rate after release stands at 48% after one year (the rate is an even higher 60% among those serving short terms) - suggesting that they are not receiving Churchillian milk in sufficient volumes. So what does Soames think has gone wrong?

'There are in many places completely unacceptable levels of violence, which might have something to do with the fact that the population has gone from 40,000 to 80,000 in recent years. The comparison between some of the prisons we run and those in the public sector are chalk and cheese. The public sector is burdened with some incredibly old Victorian prisons, which could be run far more cheaply if you blew them up and built new ones. They are gradually being closed and replaced with modern buildings.'

Four new Titan or super prisons costing £1.3bn are, indeed, on the way but Soames has yet to be asked to bid. Indeed, the last contract issued was for Northumberland Prison which Sodexo won in 2013. The most recent new prison - just opened in Wrexham - was given to the public sector without any competition. So, with no growth via new contracts for a long while, isn't it now a very unattractive business in which he finds himself? 'Well, we see the world in a global context. We have a large business in prisons, not only here but also in Australia. We've just won the biggest contract we've ever been awarded for £1.6bn to run and operate a new prison in Australia. You're right, it's a difficult business because government is a monopoly buyer. They run their own prisons so they know how much it costs them. They are a very knowledgeable buyer. Margins on the whole are very low, but it is a business that we feel comfortable doing.' He says his margin across the board is 2.5%, which is far lower than the 20% that the private sector made in the early years.

There are examples of fresher, more enlightened thinking within the prison service, a number of which have been introduced by the private sector. At G4S's Parc Prison near Bridgend in South Wales - the second largest jail in the country, housing nearly 1,700 offenders - I meet Jonathan Gilbert in cell number 36 on Block T4. Gilbert is a disbarred solicitor doing 12 years for a complex mortgage fraud. He is held on the experimental Family Intervention Unit, where prisoners are encouraged to maintain family bonds, which both help with their rehabilitation and lessen the damage done to the children of offenders while their fathers are inside.

Gilbert has a total of six kids - three older daughters, and three young sons from a second marriage. 'My boys come every weekend, and as well as that we have lounge visits,' Gilbert explains. 'The also come in the week for homework club. My wife picks them up from school.' Does that make his long sentence easier to cope with? 'It's been invaluable. We've done scouts together. Last summer, I did a Roald Dahl creative writing project. Two days together - it was brilliant. It's the hardest thing imaginable but it gets us through that month as a family. It's kept us close.'

And to those keen on the concept of punishment who may think this too cushy, Gilbert says: 'This is punishment. I'm being punished for what I did. You are stripped back. (He did several months in the grim state-run Wandsworth prison at the outset of his sentence complete with its damp, rats and cockroaches.) The process strips the core of your existence. But this helps restore pride in yourself. I'm doing a master's degree now. I messed up and I need to man up and make my family proud now.'

When he gets out, Gilbert probably won't offend again. But he's in the minority. Prisons palpably don't work. Whether they are run by the state or the likes of G4S, Serco and Sodexo, beyond keeping criminals away from the rest of us, they simply don't do what they are supposed to do: reduce the vast cost to society of habitual reoffending.

The most telling statistic of all is our rate of incarceration in the UK. In England and Wales we lock up 146 people per 100,000 of the population. In Germany that figure is 78. (In the United States the rate is an extraordinary 693 but few would advocate aping the US when it comes to prison.) The annual cost of keeping a prisoner inside is £33,291, a little less than the school fees for Eton.

When asked what he thought about rising prisoner numbers, Jerry Petherick, the head of G4S's prison business, said: 'Is that necessary? No. I think it is inexplicable as to the need. I have seen sentences going up and up.' When he was a young prison officer he thought 'blimey' when encountering an inmate who had been given 12 years. 'Now we have recommendations of 30 years plus.'

So we are embarking on building yet more prisons, but one wonders what technology and the surveillance society might offer as a cheaper and even more effective alternative to incarceration. Why, for example, could offenders not be fitted with some sort of ankle tag featuring a sort of reverse Foursquare checker, which would emit a signal stating 'I haven't checked into ...' This is no facetious comment, because the best that can be said for prisons currently is that they are keeping certain malfunctioning and anti-social individuals off the streets for a period before they are released only to go and get into trouble again.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Gilbert declines to count down the days before his release. 'I don't count days any more. My wife and I are counting the seasons. We felt good when it was 1 March. I can just see the Vale of Glamorgan from my cell window. And the trees are just coming into leaf.'

Matthew Gwyther

Sunday, 7 May 2017

Another Report

What with all the excitement of a surprise general election, I've only just noticed yet another report into the travails of the criminal justice system ‘Doing it Justice: Breaking Barriers to Criminal Justice Transformation’. 

To be perfectly frank, I haven't bothered to read the 88 page report because I'm suspicious of anything that has Sodexo as a sponsor; the layout is not easy to read on a laptop; I've never heard of DragonGate* and skim reading shows little mention of probation (I notice neither Napo nor the Probation Institute were contributors). 

I'm hoping others out there might disabuse me of these prejudices, but in the meantime, here's a handy pre-packaged spin piece on the Public Sector Executive website and nicely timed for the recent mayoral elections:-      

Unlocking the combination to criminal justice reform

If new mayors want to improve the life chances of their communities, help the most vulnerable and trailblaze public service reform, then criminal justice transformation and ‘whole-place’ pooling of public service budgets must be priorities, argue former communities secretary Hazel Blears and Professor Lord Patel of Bradford OBE, former chair of the Mental Health Act Commission.

On 4 May, six mayoral elections will be held across England to decide who will lead the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, Tees Valley, West of England and West Midlands combined authorities.

With collective responsibility for more than 9.5 million citizens and nearly a tenth of national GDP, these new directly-elected mayors will have an unparalleled mandate to give strategic leadership and direction as a spokesperson to some of the most significant and productive regions of England.

Set within the context of Brexit negotiations, it is likely that many of the new mayors will see their primary role as one of promoting economic growth and guiding investment into their respective regions – given their responsibility for a range of fiscal and economic powers. If narrowly seen as their remit, this would be a missed opportunity.

Public service transformation mandate

Newly-elected mayors must not forget they also have a broader mandate for public service transformation. Many of the combined authorities have already negotiated significant devolution of powers for areas such as further education, skills, work, housing, transport, health and social care and criminal justice. This means that new mayors are natural leaders for providing effective cross-system and cross-sector leadership. This is because they will be able to: 
  • Convene leaders at all levels
  • Marshal and negotiate support from central government
  • Take responsibility for all aspects of service change
  • Have a whole-system view of the community
There is a broad and very public consensus that health and social care is one such area that would benefit from effective local leadership. Though we do not disagree, as is clear from our report ‘Breaking Barriers: Building a sustainable future for health & social care’ published in June 2016, we also believe that the criminal justice system equally requires urgent and immediate action.

There is mounting public concern with the return to the prison riots and disruptions of the early 1990s, unprecedented levels of self-harm and suicide and the urgent need to increase staffing numbers and improve training.

Though the government is working to address these issues, with a funding boost and pledge to recruit 2,500 new prison staff, underlying problems remain. These are problems which cannot be tackled solely at a national level and through a narrow focus on the greater use of custody.

For successful long-term outcomes, the evidence points to the crucial role and impact of targeted early intervention and prevention work carried out when at-risk individuals are young, by the police and children’s services, in schools, with families and through communities. Additionally, it is the work done during and after custody to reintegrate offenders back into the community, to find them a job or profession, a roof over their head and an effective support network that prevents individuals re-entering what is increasingly becoming a revolving door system.

No silver bullet

There is no single factor or silver bullet to deliver change and transformation to a criminal justice system which costs the taxpayer £17bn annually, let alone reducing the staggering £124bn estimated annual economic costs of violent crime in the UK.

However, the impact of crime and reoffending is a local issue. Long-term solutions can only be effectively delivered and overseen at this level.

These were also the conclusions of our report, ‘Doing it Justice: Breaking Barriers to Criminal Justice Transformation’, in which we identified three main barriers to achieving real transformation for the criminal justice system as: 
  • The need to reduce tensions between central government and local control of services
  • Increasing capacity to drive innovation
  • Ensuring greater integration between criminal justice and other areas of the public sector with the greatest potential to drive long-term change such as education and employment, health and mental health, substance use and welfare 
We also outlined five essential, interdependent building blocks for successful transformation at a local level that include: 
  • Co-commissioning and design of services to drive place-based transformation
  • Co-production to encourage public engagement and new ways of working
  • Creating a life opportunities approach to preventing reoffending based on recognising the life potential of offenders
  • Better use of digital technology and data analysis to support rehabilitation
  • Devolution of leadership and workforce development 
We believe that if newly-elected mayors focus upon these five building blocks and overcoming these three barriers, they will be able to produce real public service transformation that improves local labour markets and improve their communities’ levels of safety and resilience.

Benefits of a place-based approach

Early feedback from ‘Doing It Justice’ has shown us that there is broad consensus about the advantages that a place-based approach to the system can bring. This could, and should, include the full and dynamic transfer of both powers and budgets from government to devolved authorities to prioritise the prevention of offending and cutting reoffending rates.

At our summit, where we launched the report, it was encouraging to hear from outgoing Manchester City Council chief executive Sir Howard Bernstein, who has helped oversee Manchester’s programme of public service reform and economic renewal. He highlighted the opportunities Greater Manchester’s criminal justice devolution deal could deliver for the local economy, regeneration and community resilience.

Using their unique position and mandate, mayors can summon the effective leadership required to convene leaders from police, prisons and probations. Mayors can bring the Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board together with local agencies to ensure a co-ordinated approach delivered at the right level, and provide the necessary support and resources to invest in prevention.

In Greater Manchester, we have already seen their Public Service Reform Team advance this workstream, by developing a truly pioneering approach to localised criminal justice transformation. We call on Greater Manchester’s new mayor to ensure continuity with the current mayor Tony Lloyd’s approach and to prioritise investment in this area. In other regions, it is essential that newly-elected mayors recognise the importance of the local community and by enlisting their support and understanding, harness their role in championing criminal justice transformation to develop criminal justice workstreams of their own.

Full devolution not decentralisation needed

Local areas will need support from central government to integrate criminal justice services, and combined authorities, in this context, must be seen as the natural leaders for driving systemic transformation.

When viewed through the prism of collaborative working across the health, education, housing and welfare system, the possibilities for public value creation in driving radical change across the criminal justice system represent a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

We firmly believe that it is at a local level, through devolution, that is the best way to integrate services, which have been co-designed and produced using budgets and powers that have been properly devolved to reduce the human and financial costs of offending.

But to work, this must be a full-blooded exercise in devolution, involving financial freedoms and powers, to shift the aggregated power of pooled public service budgets to engineer transformational whole-place change. Anything less is mere decentralisation, a helpful step in the right direction, but one that would not do full justice to ensuring the safety of local communities.

Newly-elected mayors must ensure the current wave of devolution does not become a footnote in history, or otherwise risk not fulfilling their transformation mandate to the people they serve.

For more information

The ‘Doing it Justice: Breaking Barriers to Criminal Justice Transformation’ report can be accessed at: www.tinyurl.com/PSE-CriminalJustice

--oo00oo--

*DragonGate Market Intelligence

Bringing joined-up thinking to a fragmented market


Having the confidence to enter new and culturally different markets takes courage, perseverance and most of all strong industry sector understanding. Working with the Public Sector is no different. Since our formation in 2012 our evidence based, step by step approach has provided clients with real politic understanding to complex, vast and ever shifting market dynamics.

DragonGate research and market intelligence breaks down the challenges and vastness of the Public Sector into manageable areas of focus and understanding. Through qualitative research and our deep consideration of people, processes and policy we can help clear the cob webs away from headline hogging myths and misconceptions and provide a fresh take on the machinery of UK Government.

Our project management teams work with clients from both the Public and Private public sector to help challenge, design and take forward new, innovative but realistic solutions to old problems. Through DragonGate’s event team we run exclusive, thought provoking seminars for senior management that bring together leaders from the public sector to address seemingly disparate but connected agendas under Chatham rules.

Our approach throughout is to work closely with our clients to provide tailored, pragmatic, mini-programme approaches which provide lasting and tangible results. We do not subscribe to abstract consultancy and strategies that bear no connection to the world of public sector constraints or business reality. Our world is the authentic world of the 21st century public sector manager.

Saturday, 6 May 2017

A Desperate Plea

I find the following seen on Facebook absolutely astonishing and yet further evidence of the utter chaos probation finds itself in. We desperately need some effective leadership!

I NEED YOUR HELP

This week I have been challenged by a very senior CRC executive to convince them that there is a strong evidenced case to support the theory that reducing average caseloads to say 45 (but increasing the expectation from staff that those who are assessed as being at highest risk of reoffending in the CRC are worked intensively using all we know from the offender engagement project SEEDS etc) will result in reduced reoffending. Whilst we know this may be true any claim to truth needs to be evidenced.

What I am looking for are detailed evidenced comments of research, pilots etc so that I can use to counter the assertion that frontline probation staff are no better at reducing reoffending rates than any responsible person they might hire with a passing interest to supervise offenders/clients. This is quite an important debate to win as failure to provide a compelling counter argument could have dire consequences for our profession.

Whether evidence is ignored is another matter. Please share this message widely as I want to be overwhelmed with considered responses. Let's see if we can crowdsource some arguments. Your job as a Probation Officer or PSO whether NPS or CRC may depend upon it. Please either leave a comment here or contact me.

David A Raho

--oo00oo--

Would be worth contacting Shadd Maruna via message on twitter. Also isn't this the sort of thing the Probation Institute is supposed to be doing? - big ask for a Union rep.

Good on you DR. Police at Xxxxxxxx IOM scheme have produced figures for 2014-2016 showing that during that period Xxxxxxxx IOM with a cohort of approximately 200 service users saved £6 million in saved court police and prison costs. This was owing to intensive work involving police probation DWP housing and drug multi disc work. I'm not sure that is what PTB have in mind exactly. I am sure they are looking for cheap and simple as ever. But it is an illustration and concrete proof that a small investment can produce huge savings.

I think it's like asking someone who likes children to teach a class of them - they might be ok as a one off, but they don't know the curriculum, child development theory, safeguarding... ultimately, they could do more harm than good. The probation training ensures staff not only know what to do, but why they are doing it. We're talking about complex academic theories, backed up by research, which underpin everything we do. It breaks my heart when our experience and qualifications are dismissed as being something anyone could do.

Some might say we need an independent body to look after our professional interests like the BMA.

A mix of shock a CRC manager could be so contemptuous of us but also happy we could disprove such rubbish. But my question is - no one has had 45 cases for years - so how can this be studied? Has a study specifically been done on caseloads?

If it hasn't been done, how can there be real evidence produced on this specific issue? If not, could a study be set up for this purpose? Would need to be funded.

Great challenge I will post you mine and Xxxxxx's response over the weekend.

I can play football but does not mean I could manager a premiership or any team in a professional league and win. I would like to think I could make a good attempt but winning even a game would be very difficult, however If you are a trained football coach you are likely to have a better change you will have knowledge experiences and an understanding of different methods to improve your team and individuals. A football team is made up of a complex set of variables the better trained you are in the variables the better outcome you are likely to have.

What is the difference from being a trained PO and a trained football coach? Apart from the obverse the sentiment yes any one can do it but you will have a better chance if you are well trained. The main variable is how motivated is the person towards change. Do you have the particular knowledge to address the underlying issues. We need to be better trained, not less. Crazy CRC.

The problem with the organisation as it is that they are not willing to listen to any arguments whatsoever no matter how much evidence they are presented with. The attitude is pretty much "My way or the highway".

Friday, 5 May 2017

A Shopping List

I notice that Rob Allen has drawn up a very helpful shopping list to put before aspriring candidates and political parties in the forthcoming general election:-  

Manifesto Destiny. Criminal Justice Ideas for the 2017 Election

Chances are we won’t get much about criminal justice in any of the manifestos. But Labour’s surprisingly Blairite promise of 10,000 more police officers suggests that domestic policy may not be entirely absent from the parties’ offerings to the electorate. It’s a reminder too of how strongly received wisdom shapes policy development in the field, even in a radical party committed to transforming the country. Would not 10,000 mental health workers do more to address the crisis of well being which brings so many into conflict with the law – and free up police time to prevent and respond to more serious harm?

Here are five criminal justice priorities I’d like to see featured:

1) Sensible Sentences

The prison population has been fairly stable since 2010 at about 85,000, but with a 25% fall in the numbers sentenced for serious crimes over that period, we should really have seen prison numbers go down. The reason they haven’t is that the proportion of cases being sentenced to prison has risen – from 22% to 27% - as have average sentence lengths for almost all types of crime from 16 to 19 months. Sentences have got longer not only for violent and sexual offences but for theft and drug offences too. Further sentence inflation is neither desirable nor manageable. We will introduce a strong presumption against short prison terms and require the Sentencing Council to produce a wider range of guidelines, based on fuller consideration of the cost and effectiveness of different sentences. Stronger limits will be placed on courts preventing them from exceeding guideline levels and new pilot problem solving courts will be encouraged to impose less severe punishments when it is in the interests of rehabilitation to do so.

2) Developing Youth Justice

Youth justice has offered a ray of light in penal policy, with big reductions in numbers in court and in custody in the last ten years. Now’s the time to extend the successful leadership of the Youth Justice Board and the multi-agency approach of Youth Offending Teams to the young adult age group of 18-21 year olds. For the under 18’s, it’s time too to phase out Young Offender Institutions and Secure Training Centres and expand the number of small secure children’s homes – the only model that has proved consistently able to offer appropriate and constructive regimes for young people in custody. Responsibility for meeting the entire costs of custody for under 18's will be transferred to local authorities and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). In due course local bodies will be able to commission secure and other accommodation for under 18’s rather than simply purchasing what is currently available

3) Promoting Probation

Half of the £1.3 billion being used to build four new prisons, will be used to invest in community based alternatives to custody for the 50,000 people a year given short prison sentences – through more investment in supervision provided by probation, Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s) and other organisations; by improved dialogue with judges and magistrates and better links with the public. Priority will be given to keeping women and people with mental health problems out of prison environments and strengthening the availability of community and residential treatment services instead. We will conduct a genuine and wide ranging review of Transforming Rehabilitation to ensure that when current CRC contracts end, a suitable model is in place for a reinvigorated probation service.

4) Safeguarding Prisons

We will redraft the Prisons Bill with much stronger duties on the authorities to provide decent conditions, avoid overcrowding, and treat prisoners with humanity, fairness and respect for their dignity. Prisons will be required to ensure proper staffing ratios based on 2010 levels and a task force established to drive developments in education, vocational training and work in prisons. Mental health services will be strengthened and a programme to develop life coaching for prisoners expanded across the estate.

5) Rehabilitation Devolution

We will develop a Justice Reinvestment Taskforce to identify the best ways of transferring responsibilities for justice services to a more local level, with a view to devolving budgets by the end of the parliament. Police and Crime Commissioners will be invited to chair new Justice and Safety Partnerships with CRC’s, local government, health and judicial participation which would give a greater regional voice in the system and create a commissioning vehicle to which criminal justice budgets might be devolved. Pathfinder initiatives will be agreed with Mayors in London and Manchester through which savings resulting from reductions in prison numbers will be reinvested in prevention and rehabilitation programmes.

There is a lot more that a new government should do - not least committing to take seriously David Lammy's recommendations on race equality in criminal justice; expanding the availability of Restorative Justice and considering a new approach to illegal drugs. But action on these five might help bring to an end what has been an increasingly unhappy period for criminal justice in England and Wales.

Rob Allen

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Back To Where We Started?

With the nation engaged in the usual election nonsense, here we have the RSA pondering on what the future might hold for the government department which, under Chris Grayling's leadership, did so much to create the chaos we now endure:-    

Rumours, Reform and Rehabilitation


With a general election looming, rumour abounds about reshuffles, the future of prison reform and even the end of the Ministry of Justice. What is it about the department that feeds this speculation and what could the future hold?

Since the RSA first embarked on its prisons work in 2007, six people have inhabited the role of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. Under Labour, Lord Falconer was the first minister to combine the two roles following the scrapping of the Constitutional Unit and the creation of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in 2007. Since then, Jack Straw, Kenneth Clarke and Chris Grayling have all had the privilege and challenge. None of them came out well in terms of the changes made – or not made – to our prison and probation systems.

Whatever the public think of the last two incumbents, Liz Truss and Michael Gove, both made long-term prison reform a priority for the MoJ. While there has been a change of emphasis since Truss took the helm just under a year ago, she was the architect of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which will now not be pushed through before Parliament is dissolved in preparation for June’s General Election.

Most of the Bill dealt with courts, including controversial changes to personal injury law and the introduction of virtual courts. In relation to prisons it included short-term measures to tackle the illegal and damaging supply of psychoactive substances and mobile phones in prison (although, as the Bill’s select committee heard, tackling demand requires deeper cultural changes to how prisons work, including much higher levels of purposeful activity). The Bill included recommendations made by RSA and others in relation to strengthening the role of both Her Majesty’s Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and, for the first time, defining prisons’ role as including support for rehabilitation and preparation for release.

Inevitably, given the state of many of our prisons and the harms this is bringing to those who live and work in them, there are those who see much of this as irrelevant; unless we reduce population numbers, overcrowding and improve staff to prisoner ratios, redefining prisons’ purpose is at best pointless and at worst, a distraction. There are others who see the lack of control in some of our prisons and conclude that the only solution is tougher regimes, more punishment and the recruitment of a ‘more authoritative’ workforce. Some conclude nothing can be done.

Aside from the defeatism of the last of these positions, the other arguments all have some merit and their own internal logic. The prison population is too high. Too many of our prisons are overcrowded and there are people inside that should not be. In securing additional investment in frontline staff and some movement on pay, Truss showed a welcome recognition of the impact that rising population and cuts in funding have had since 2010. But this has not removed the huge challenge of recruitment and retention. Solving this requires greater stability, training and developing staff to do the job at hand, empowering, equipping and trusting governors to make wise judgments and implement their ideas within a clear framework.

And while those who call for harsher regimes could do well to visit some of our prisons and spend time with the staff and prisoners there, we do need staff that have authority. But we need to look at the evidence of what works best in gaining this. And as any good governor will tell you, alongside security, prisons need to be run by consent and that is being sorely tested in some establishments with tragic consequences. Authority comes through building strong relationships, through mutual respect, high-levels of trust and by giving people – staff and prisoners – a higher sense of purpose and hope. The Prisons and Courts Bill redefinition of prisons’ purpose – barely four lines – can be dismissed as purely symbolic but what it signaled was a need for institutional reform; not just for prisons but for the government department charged with overseeing them and the services on which they depend.

So what now? The news that the Bill would not go through has been swiftly followed by talk of the Ministry of Justice being scrapped. However inaccurate, rumours can be telling; while we all love to knock our political leaders, what of the machinery that lies behind? John Reid, the former Home Secretary’s conclusion that his department was not fit for purpose heralded the creation of MoJ. Does the government now need to ask whether the MoJ has fared much better? Both Gove and Truss in their different ways attempted to address this question, if not so bluntly put; not an easy task given the daily challenges prisons are facing and the dependence on officials’ operational expertise to respond to this.

Gove’s emphasis was on radical decentralisation; the creation of pioneering reform prisons that would test new ways of working that gave governors greater freedoms and commissioning power, matched by fewer, clearer instructions from the centre and new accountability frameworks that would drive local innovation and performance. While Truss talked more about empowerment and less about autonomy, she retained some of this with plans to extend ‘reform status’ across the prison estate and has overseen a clearer division between the department’s operational function in relation to prison and probation with the creation of the Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and policy (within MoJ).

If the department does survive, only time will tell whether this split will help to tackle some of the challenges that it faces. These include the overly centralised and bureaucratic culture, its failure to communicate effectively with itself and governors and belief that if the centre knows what works that this is being translated and deployed at the local level. And while the change of name on its own may seem profligate, it won't be if it signals recognition and action to rebalance the expertise and priority across prisons, probation and wider justice services. Effective reform can never just be about prisons but depends on forging integrated relationships across the range of statutory agencies – police, probation, the judiciary and so on – and with civil society, including employers, communities and the myriad of third sector organisations working in this area.

The RSA’s Future Prison project’s last report argued that potential impact that prisons could have on reducing reoffending and community safety has been undermined by a lack of consistent political leadership and clear purpose and that policy and practice needed to drive deeper and wider integration of justice and resettlement services.

And so a dilemma. On the one hand, another change of direction – particularly any radical move of MoJ functions back to the Home Office – would be disruptive and swallow valuable Whitehall resource. What Gove and Truss started – however falteringly and imperfectly – could be the very beginnings of a long journey that begins to see prisons as places for potential progression and recognises that investing in governors’ leadership and the workforce are critical. With the support of the Secretary of State and Prisons Minister, the RSA has been working on developing the New Futures Network (NFN), with the aim of creating a new body that would champion and drive reform, starting with seeing prisons as public services that serve and need to be embedded in their local communities and economies.

On the other hand, greater integration needs to happen locally and it remains far from clear whether the centralisers within HMPPS are able to let go where they need to. The RSA’s report, A Matter of Conviction, made the case for government setting out a national rehabilitative strategy that included a phased process of devolution, giving a much greater role to Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in terms of coordinated oversight of justice services in one area. This is not a new or unique argument but an urgent one given the mounting evidence that community rehabilitation companies – resulting from the government’s last major justice reform – Transforming Rehabilitation – are largely failing to deliver the integrated service, through custody and beyond, promised.

Despite the shift in thinking from the centre on devolution since Theresa May became Prime Minister, there has been continued moves at local level in some areas to look at the role of PCCs in relation to joining up justice services across their area with some seeing this as a way to become, over time co-commissioners and co-designers of local justice services, incentivising services locally to reap the rewards of upstream intervention. And given this, which department is responsible for championing the role of Police and Crime Commissioners? The Home Office…

Rachel O'Brien

--oo0oo-- 

Rachel has worked in the area of criminal justice for some years, most recently setting up Transitions Spaces, a community interest company concerned with understanding and developing practical approaches to rehabilitation. Her particular interests are in service user led approaches and workforce and community engagement. She led the Transitions project at the RSA working with a prison in East Yorkshire for three years.

Her publications include Building a Rehabilitation Culture (RSA 2014), Transitions (RSA 2011) and The Learning Prison (RSA 2010). Rachel is commissioning editor of the RSA Journal. Prior to this, Rachel worked in the voluntary sector, thinks tanks and in government as a Special Advisor.

Sunday, 30 April 2017

Where Did It All Go Wrong?

I'm still ploughing through stuff kindly highlighted by readers while I was away last week, such as this:-
"Article in The Times today Thurs 27/4 citing report by criminal justice think tank Crest Advisory. 66% of magistrates lack confidence in community sentences. Less use made of community sentences in 2016 than in anytime in the past 13 years! Eg: Just over 100,000 orders made in 2016 compared to nearly 200,000 in 2006."
An astonishing statistic and in case there are still any doubters out there, here we have further evidence of just what a disaster the TR omnishambles has been:-

Community sentences: where did it all go wrong?


A study into the use of community sentences in England and Wales

Despite crime falling overall, our criminal justice system remains under pressure, particularly in our prisons, which are, in the words of the former Chief Inspector, ‘in their worst state for a decade’, with violence, overcrowding and self-harm higher than at any point on record.

The notion that community sentences can be a more effective, cheaper alternative to prison is supported by a strong body of evidence. At their best, sentences served in the community can offer a powerful tool for addressing the root causes of offending behaviour, reducing the rate at which an offender reoffends and thus lowering demand on the system overall.

Yet despite their obvious potential, community sentences are being used less than at any point over the last 15 years.

Where did it all go wrong? is the first systematic attempt in over a decade to understand what lies behind this phenomenon and reveals some of the reasons for this loss of confidence.

Crest Advisory has explored the current use of community sentences in the context of the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme and the ongoing and challenging fiscal context. Whilst there are no silver bullet solutions, the report sets out a number of measures the government could implement to make a difference.

Key findings:

The report reveals that community sentences:

  • are implemented in a way that bears little resemblance to the evidence of what works: they are neither intensive, swift, nor punitive enough to act as a proper deterrent. Most importantly, offenders are not held properly to account for complying with their sentence;
  • are failing to transform lives, acting as little more than a stepping stone on the path to prison: 35% of those sentenced to custody have received at least five previous community sentences;
  • have lost the confidence of magistrates: a new survey of magistrates commissioned for this report reveals that over a third of magistrates (37%) are not confident that community sentences are an effective alternative to custody, and two thirds (65%) are not confident that community sentences reduce crime. As one magistrate we interviewed put it: “It may be wonderful what is going on but we want to know what’s going on”.
Recommendations:

The report recommends eleven policy changes, to do with sentencing reform, the role of magistrates, the role of probation and justice devolution:
  1. A ‘Project Hope’ for England and Wales
  2. Greater flexibility for magistrates to administer innovative punishments tailored to the offender/offence
  3. Amend sentencing guidelines to introduce a presumption of intensive community orders for young adult offenders facing custodial sentences of 12 months or less in magistrates’ courts
  4. Amend sentencing guidelines to remove the assumption that suspended sentence orders are less onerous than community orders
  5. Extend the power to undertake regular court reviews for prolific offenders serving short custodial sentences and/or community orders to all magistrates’ courts
  6. Enhance magistrates’ training to improve their understanding of community sentences
  7. Improve the quality of pre-sentencing advice
  8. Provide feedback about the outcome of sentences to magistrates
  9. Support greater transparency of community sentences, particularly the nature of unpaid work
  10. Require a new target to ensure that the NPS allocates cases to the CRC on the same day as the sentencing, and that requirements are commenced the week afterwards (or at least no later than a month after sentencing for specialist requirements)
  11. Enable PCCs and mayors to co-commission offender management services locally
--oo00oo--

About Crest

We are a team of policy, communications and brand specialists who care about building safer communities. We work with organisations across multiple sectors – helping them think, speak and act more clearly to improve criminal justice and policing. Unafraid to challenge, we take time to understand your needs and offer the right blend of support for you to navigate change and drive success.

Why are we different?

Because we know criminal justice and policing inside out, we provide bespoke advice tailored to your needs, rather than generic solutions. Our range of skills, perspectives and networks also means we are able to offer a unique blend of insight, analysis, communications and brand expertise. And with a team based across the UK, we are able to work alongside you in your communities.

--oo00oo--

Gavin Lockhart-Mirams
Managing Director

About Gavin

A specialist in criminal justice, Gavin has more than a decade of experience working with government, police and public safety organisations. He worked in No.10 Downing Street advising the British Prime Minister and worked closely with other governments to cut crime.

By combining his experience in management consultancy with public policy-development, Gavin founded Crest Advisory in 2011. As a father of two, Gavin is committed to making the world a better and safer place for all.


Key achievements


  • Senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister David Cameron on criminal justice, counter-terrorism, public services and crime.
  • Advised on ways to shift power to individuals and communities (including introducing legislation paving the way for elected police commissioners in 2012).
  • Pushed forward work to increase transparency across the justice system (for example publishing local crime data).

Saturday, 29 April 2017

Outsourcing

Clearly nothing much is going to happen whilst ever the nation is in election mode, so possibly we have the chance to wander down rather more different alleys than usual. Whilst away, I see someone flagged up this by Allen White from the New Statesman in June 2016:-

The Shadow State: how to stop outsourcing scandals

The government should be free to outsource work to whoever it likes: but it must be open in its decisions so it can be held accountable when it gets them wrong.

Four years ago, I began to write about outsourcing for this publication. That series of articles eventually became known as "The Shadow State", and this month I’ve published a book compiling many of those reports, along with subsequent work for other publications, to try to make sense of it all.

I didn’t come to the subject back in 2012 with any particular political axe to grind. What motivated me to write about the subject was a simple point: I could see the government was keen to increase the number of services it outsourced – but I couldn’t see why.

Before I began, the scandals around the outsourcing industry had been coming thick and fast. In 2012, Britain had been forced to call in the army to provide security for the Olympics after G4S announced it was unable to deliver its services. Questions were beginning to be asked about other companies, including Serco, Capita, the now-defunct A4e, Atos and others.

If the government outsourced to save money or to get a better quality of service, the circumstantial evidence, it seemed to me, suggested it was failing in its aims. But what really struck me as I began to study the subject, was how many different areas of the state I ended up writing about.

Almost every area of the justice sector - from police to probation via courts and prisons – had been touched by the outsourcing industry. So too had employment and benefits services, health care, social care, not to mention all sorts of less obvious backroom departments – at times it seemed like every service the state provided for the public had been touched by the outsourcing industry.

This was a gigantic change in the way that government operated which had taken place over the last 20 or so years, yet analysis of it – either in official government reports, or advisers’ memoirs and the like – was thin on the ground.

Two other things became clear: first, when problems occurred, more often than not they were born of mismanagement rather than genuine malice or greed. Which was rather exacerbated by the second problem: no one seemed to have a bloody clue what was going on at any stage of the process.

Of course, to talk about “problems” is to downplay the extent of suffering for which outsourcing companies have been, to a greater or lesser extent, responsible. Think of the deaths in youth prisons, in care homes, in the asylum detention system, of the misery inflicted on disabled people by issues with fitness-to-work tests. These incidents are not insignificant.

Are they directly born of the decision to outsource? The direct line of responsibility is often nebulous – sometimes staff appear to be directly culpable; sometimes the system, for which government is ultimately responsible, is more to blame. It remains unclear in a number of cases whether people who have died after being restrained to death by guards working for outsourcing companies lost their lives because of poor government guidelines, or the way in which they were deployed. Often it feels like this muddiness over accountability suits everyone involved.

Without doubt, the state sector has its fair share of bureaucratic cruelty and incompetence. But the introduction of a profit incentive and the lack of transparency about that never fails to add an element of scandal to these tragedies. Only this week we learned that the Home Office would not reveal whether women had been raped in Yarl’s Wood because of "commercial confidentiality".

In part due to the amount of details which are shielded from public scrutiny, lessons are not learned. This takes us to the second point. There is no central intelligence when it comes to outsourcing. Failure is rewarded again and again, primarily because there are so few companies to choose from.

As an example - with G4S and Serco under a Serious Fraud Office investigation over the tagging scandal, the government turned to Capita – which was promptly forced, due to a lack of suppliers, to outsource some of the job to…G4S.

What’s more, the Chinese walls between the companies and the Whitehall officials who contract them are often paper thin – there is little oversight when ministers and civil servants choose to work in a private sector to which they may only recently have given work.

Since my New Statesman series finished, the Conservatives have registered an overwhelming general election victory. The growing scale of government outsourcing has continued apace. Having looked at this subject for years, I've reached a simple conclusion: The government should be free to outsource work to whoever it likes: but it must be open in its decisions so it can be held accountable when it gets them wrong.

The question of how we contract, why we contract, and whether we get value for money when we do has begun to rise to the forefront of public attention. No longer is it the preserve of the political left and no longer is it just about the well-known outsourcing companies. It was all over the headlines following another story I worked on: the collapse of the south London children’s charity Kids Company.

The parliamentary committee that reported on Kids Company felt that there were many lessons to be learned about wider government procurement. Those who watched the hearings would have been stunned to learn the charity had been awarded millions by a government department - the Cabinet Office - whose ministers had visited it once in the last two decades.

Perhaps the tide is beginning to shift. The Government has also made plenty of noises about open commissioning – though whether its actions will match its rhetoric remains to be seen – while the renationalisation of troubled Medway youth jail is something of a precedent in terms of justice, where for years the outsourcing industry has grown without respite.

We live in an age where the public demands greater openness in how government operates. One suspects that if the shroud is ever fully lifted on the outsourcing sector, the things revealed may not be too pretty.

Alan White

Shadow State: Inside the Secret Companies that Run Britain, by Alan White, is published now. Alan's original New Statesman articles on outsourcing can be found here and here.

Friday, 28 April 2017

Latest From Napo 148

Probation Pay Update April 2017

NPS PAY CONTRACTUAL INCREMENT

NPS have notified the unions that they will be paying the contractual increment in this month’s pay. The payments are due for all staff below the current band maxima from 1stApril.

The reason for the payment being made earlier than usual is the NPS are concerned by the extent of ongoing payroll and pension administration issues they have been encountering with the SSCL contract. In summary, if the payments were delayed and included as part of the 2017-18 pay negotiations, then the NPS were not confident that back-pay could be implemented without triggering further errors and complications with making accurate tax, NI and pension contributions via PAYE.

Napo have welcomed the new honesty around the scale of the HR problems and welcome any efforts to minimise further errors. We have received guarantees that there will be no adverse impact on the on-going pay reform negotiations and the remit afforded to the MOJ for resolving the structural probation pay problems. THE 2017 PAY REFORM NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE. The early payments also provide a concrete recognition of the payroll and pension administration difficulties which we will be raising as a priority with the next Justice Ministers unless they are resolved during the Parliamentary ‘purdah’ period.

CRCs & PAYMENT OF THE INCREMENT

As the increments are contractual they should also be paid immediately to all staff below their band maxima in CRCs. Some CRC owners had already approached Napo for advice on paying the increment given that local bargaining arrangements are still being established. We will be re-enforcing the need to make the payments officially over the coming days and are expecting the NPS contracts management team to re-enforce this positive message.

STAFF ON THE BAND MAXIMA

Staff at their band maxima are not contractually entitled to an automatic increment. However, members in this position can be assured that Napo are pressing for a substantial increase in all our pay negotiations across probation. Our pay claim highlights the impact of the pay freeze on staff who have had no consolidated increase since 2010, and the wider implication on morale, recruitment and retention.

WHAT ARE THE PAYROLL & PENSION ADMINISTRATION CONCERNS?

For most staff, most of the time, payments continue as normal. However, where there is any change (e.g. someone changing their hours, temporary payments, pay on promotion, local increases for existing staff where recruitment allowances are made, etc) the system seems to completely break down. When errors occur, the NPS and SSCL seem to have no capacity to quickly rectify the errors – or processes put in place based upon likely problems in the MoJ are ‘automatically’ applied to NPS staff, which then extend the original problem by generating tax and NI problems. For example, if someone receives an emergency payment after having been wrongly paid this seems to trigger tax problems when the monies are recovered; which then results in a new a new mis-payment and the creation of a vicious circle.

These administrative systems errors are amplified by numerous links between the civil service pension scheme and wider terms and conditions (for example exit and compensation payments). Essentially, the civil service scheme is not funded, meaning that there is no actual pot of money being invested to guarantee enough return to meet future pension commitments. This has, for generations, allowed governments to raid the national pension fund for redundancy and compensation payments. If this happened with a funded scheme it would be illegal – it is essentially what Maxwell and Green did at Mirror Group and BHS.

The local government scheme is funded and so these raids are obviously not allowed. However, the SSCL systems assumes these links exist and either apply them wrongly or seize up when told the automatic process for the MoJ can’t be applied.

The strain on the system has got worse since the introduction of the Single Operating Platform SOP – with a number of newly appointed PSOs not even being issued contracts or paid.

As well as causing untold grief and stress for members this incompetence is undermining line managers, stuck with the responsibility of sorting out problems which are systemic and outside their control. Not surprisingly, given this lack of support, some managers are giving poor advice – for example, a new PSO who wasn’t paid was told to chase up SSCL in their own time or on their own phone and ended up with a personal bill of nearly £100 as SSCL then charged at a premium rate for mobile calls!

PENSIONS

Napo has uncovered a range of other pension failings that seem to be habitual in the MoJ – probably as a result of the cultures built up around an unfunded scheme. The latest versions of the local government and civil service pension schemes, introduced after the pension disputes in 2012, embed the principle that ALL pay is pensionable and subject to contributions. These pay for the higher pensions in both of the new schemes. If the contributions are not paid then the payments to pensioners will be wrong.

This principle requires that long established bad pension habits that were reasonable in a final salary scheme need to change. For example - temporary payments, non-consolidated payments or overtime were not automatically pensionable in the old models as they would not necessarily be part of someone’s final salary. In the new model, where your pension builds up based on 1/49th of what you earn each year added to what you’ve earned in previous years, these MUST be pensionable.

However, the civil service seem to have been taking short cuts and resisting implementing the principles of their own model. Contributions have not always been increased to recognise the new pension principles meaning some civil servants are being short-changed. Napo is not prepared to allow the pension scheme to be undermined. We have identified numerous such errors which the NPS have had to accept – for example increasing pensions for those who left mid-year but were entitled to an incremental increase from 1st April which was applied late, after they’d exited. They are finding addressing these errors to be painfully difficult and complicated, having not established any systems with SSCL for making such adjustments. These problems also impact in CRCs where staff left prior to share-sale.

Napo specifically warned the MoJ about this prior to the staff split but we were ignored. These are an example of the consequences of rushing through the TR agenda to meet Grayling’s political timetable. Putting them right is proving to be very difficult and expensive. Had it not been for our vigilance and determination to hold NPS officials to account they would have gone unchallenged.

Napo members can continue to get help and support in sorting these problems out. Any member with a concern should contact their local Napo Representatives who will if necessary liaise with Dean Rogers or email info@napo.org.uk for assistance.

All members can also be certain that Napo will continue to hold the employers to account and protect your entitlements under the local government pension scheme.

Dean Rogers                         Ian Lawrence          Chris Winters Yvonne Pattison
Assistant General Secretary  General Secretary   National Co-Chairs

IF YOU KNOW COLLEAGUES WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF NAPO PLEASE SHARE THIS BULLETIN WITH THEM AND ASK THEM TO CONSIDER JOINING US. BY JOINING THEY WILL BE ENTITLED TO SUPPORT AND HELP WITH PAYROLL, PENSION AND OTHER POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AS WELL ADDING THEIR VOICE TO THE LARGEST COLLECTIVE AND INDEPENDENT VOICE FOR PROBATION.

Saturday, 22 April 2017

What Do Charities Think of TR?

Regular readers will be aware that our insightful predictions as to TR being nothing more than an all-mighty train crash of epic, omnishamble proportions, have been proved correct in every detail. An award-winning service has been smashed; careers wrecked; most staff royally-shafted in one way or another; services dramatically deteriorated and released prisoners getting '£48 and a leaflet' - why, even the CRCs are crying foul! 

But what of the much-vaunted, bright as buttons, innovating, voluntary sector? Here is a fascinating insight provided in research conducted by NPC, the New Philanthropy Capital:- 
At NPC we are interested in how the public sector and voluntary sector work alongside one another. We have previously published reports on the role of the voluntary sector in health and education. This research into the criminal justice sector is our most recent exploration of the boundaries between the state and the voluntary sector.
BEYOND BARS: MAXIMISING THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR’S CONTRIBUTION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

'I’m not sure if TR is the Titanic or the iceberg, but it is one of the two.’ 

There has been very little transparency around Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), and there is uncertainty about its future.  Some established providers are finding it hard to continue. Both general and specialist sectors—such as women’s services—have found contract design to be at odds with their practice.

Interviewees identified four main challenges posed to the voluntary sector by TR:

1. Independent funders are now cautious 
2. Small, local charities are at risk 
3. Contract management has been confusing 
4. PbR has discouraged helping the hardest to rehabilitate 

1. 2. Affecting the whole sector  3.4. Affecting charities in TR contracts 

The four main challenges posed to the voluntary sector by TR 


1. Independent funders are more cautious Some grant making trusts and foundations have withdrawn funding from criminal justice out of concern about subsidising the state or contributing to private profits. Other funders have ‘redirected their lens’ to other areas like homelessness or employment.

2. Small charities are at risk Grass roots organisations feel they are ‘being exploited’ by some TR providers. With services provided through TR thin on the ground and demand increasing, providers refer to local charities outside of the supply chain, who are not only not being paid for their services, but also risk losing other funding sources by engaging. 

3. Contract management has been confusing: ‘Chaotic doesn’t cover it.’ Many charity providers have pulled out over lack of clarity, which has cost them significant resource. ‘It has been two years and some are only just signing contracts now.’ Others encountered the longstanding problem of being ‘bid candy.’ One charity we spoke to was named in 9 of 11 winning contracts bids but has never been approached to deliver a day’s work. 

4. PbR has discouraged helping the hardest to rehabilitate:TR’s payment by results approach risks disincentivising organisations from working with the hardest to rehabilitate. Though ‘PbR should help innovate…in reality it creates a risk averse culture where charities stick to tried and tested work.’ One result of this is that TR does not adequately address disproportionate outcomes for BME communities.

Charities risk drifting from their mission

Many charities’ missions are about being person-centred, holistic and long-term but it is often a challenge to live up to this: 


  • Some charities will ‘bid for anything to stay afloat’, moving away from their stated mission in order to receive funding. 
  • Funding is reducing while demand is increasing. As a result, ‘charities are having to raise the criteria to turn people away, which sits uncomfortably with trustee boards.’ 
  • Arrangement under TR contracts could mean having to deliver a ‘penal function’ by recording when service users do not show up for probation. This is at odds with the central relationship built on trust that is the focus of so much charitable work. Many charities have decided not to get involved in TR for this reason.
'Traditionally charities have stood apart because they don’t deliver punishment. This is increasingly a real point of contention.’

Mission drift is troubling, and puts charities’ service users at risk. Though the funding environment has made it difficult for some charities to resist, good governance should prevent mission drift.

Fewer charities appear to be campaigning

Though ‘numerous’ charities say they do policy related work, it seems that only a handful of voices dominate the debate. This is ‘helping government to say, “we’re not hearing that from anyone else”’ and allows them to not listen to concerns. It should be remembered that the first principle of the 2010 Compact between government and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) is ‘to respect and uphold the independence of CSOs, to deliver their mission, including their right to campaign, regardless of any relationship, financial or otherwise, which might exist.’

So why aren’t as many charities campaigning at what could be a crucial time for reform? 


  • The effect of government lobbying laws may have made organisations wary. 
  • Some funders are resistant to advocacy work: ‘It is deeply troubling to have heard funders not wanting to see anything with the word “campaigning” in it’. 
  • Campaigning has been ‘the first thing cut in many organisations’, where demand for service delivery outweighs potential long term change. 
  • Campaigning voices should come from service users, or ‘experts by experience,’ so at least some of the charities campaigning need to have frontline experience.
Charities could collaborate on their campaigning to limit the expense. Frontline charities could share their expert understanding with larger campaigning charities (bearing in mind sensitivities involved.)


‘While we focused on surviving, campaigning has been neglected. Now is an important time for us to move onto the campaigning on which we were set up to do.’

It is unclear how charities can innovate

We should be careful not to fetishise innovation 


There is already a lot of evidence of ‘what works’ in the sector and a demand for innovation by funders can be damaging: ‘It is well known what works in criminal justice, what changes is the political environment. Funders and charities still have an important role in putting forward the case time and time again for what works.’ And innovation may not be encouraged by PbR funding models: ‘If you design the wrong type of PbR model you don’t drive innovation, because innovation means you might go out of business.’ 

…but there is a distinction between innovative programmes, and delivering programmes in an innovative way. Charities could do more of the latter. 

When delivering programmes in prison, charities could be involved more fundamentally in co-designing interventions with prison residents and prison officers. Rather than delivering a programme and leaving, charities could incubate the skills and knowledge needed, shifting ownership into the hands of prison staff and residents. This would be an innovative and more sustainable way of building trust between prison officers and residents.

Devolution could encourage innovation 

Crime is local and its solutions often are too. Devolution offers great opportunities for collaboration between PCCs and charities. Charities should be clear with PCCs and governors about shared priorities and ways of collaborating to deliver better outcomes for those involved in crime and in the communities alike. Rather than waiting for a public consultation, they should proactively approach PCCs with ideas for collaboration while their ideas are in development.

--oo00oo--

Your editor is off on another short sojourn abroad and with internet access unreliable, I'm afraid the blog may have to run on autopilot until Friday. I know you can manage perfectly well without me and in my absence will keep monitoring developments for our mutual benefit and enlightenment. Thanks.  

Friday, 21 April 2017

Latest From Napo 147

Napo General Secretary address to Westminster Legal Policy Forum

At a seminar on prison reform held in London today, Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence, offered the following thoughts in a debate covering the raising of standards in Prisons and the future of integrated offender management:

Colleagues, Chair, in response to the Chair’s request for the speakers to be exciting, I am not sure that what I have to say will have you rolling in the aisles, but thanks for this opportunity which I hope will supplement the excellent contributions from other speakers.

Let me start with a positive, saying that in Napo's view the creation of HMPPS out of the ashes of NOMS ought to be the driver for the long awaited and desperately needed integration of the offender management system.

As we have heard, the advent of the General Election means that the current Prisons and Courts Bill goes back to the drafting board, but given the priority afforded to prison reform and the host of issues that Steve and Bob Neill have mentioned, one can only hope that the future government post 8th June, will move forward urgently with reform.

But let’s drill down into just some of the pressing issues that our members in the Probation service are facing in the context of managing the client base and some suggested solutions.

Firstly, on the stated intention to increase the number of probation staff in prison which has engendered some serious debate amongst our membership.

The Probation service is often the only consistency in a prisoner’s journey through the CJS. It is suggested on the one hand that this proposal would seriously disrupt this concept as offenders would see a change in their supervising officer every time they move between prisons, bringing further uncertainty in an already fragmented system which will only damage prisoner/probation relationships which we believe are the key to reducing re-offending.

Let’s face it, and its never popular to say this outside of this type of this engaged audience, but there are simply too many people ( and as we have heard earlier and too many unwelcome insect infestations) in the prison system, and I bet you won't hear many politicians echoing this fact in the upcoming hustings!

Prison should be a last resort for those who have caused or are liable to cause danger to our communities. So Napo believes that the MOJ should focus firstly on community interventions and prison based rehabilitation (for which there is clearly a compelling need). Second we must have skilled practitioners out there in the community to complete the whole project and break the cycle of recidivism.

And, as Bob Neill and others have said, Probation and Prisons must get the investment that is needed to focus on the priority of reducing re-offending and providing value for money to the taxpayer who speaking frankly have been taken for a ride.

Whilst we await the outcomes of the Probation System Review that has been trying to unravel the post -Transforming Rehabilitation problems, we believe that the new Government should take a firmer line with private probation providers who, as continual HMIP reports have indicated, (two more this week examining Working Links and Sodexo) are simply not delivering all that they were contracted to do.

So where necessary Napo believes that the MOJ should use its golden share option to take back control of failing CRCs.

But where CRC owners show a willingness to engage with us by treating their staff fairly and investing in training and working with us and others to develop a License to Practice, then Napo is prepared to match that commitment both within the National Probation service and the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies and that is what I said in my recent evidence to the Justice Select Committee and what I will again be saying to the next Secretary of State.

Finally, Progressive reform also means reducing the prison population by investing in probation, reviewing sentencing guidelines and restoring the confidence of sentencers, politicians and the public in the role of probation as an effective agent in the intervention process.

And I would say this wouldn't I? What’s also needed is a major Pay review for Probation to increase the recruitment and retention of staff.

It’s a long wish list I know, but we believe that with the right degree of commitment and political courage from our next Government, whatever its complexion, then these suggestions will make a major contribution to the social reforms that we have been considering and debating today.

Thank you for your time