Life has a habit of throwing up the strangest and cruelest of ironies and yesterday 13th July 2011 provided just such an example. As many of us found ourselves gripped by the momentous developments being played out in Parliament and Rupert Murdoch for the first time ever having to bow to the inevitable and concede defeat, some of us became aware that the end of the Probation Service as we know it had been announced.
In a disgraceful letter from Michael Spurr at NOMS headquarters and addressed to all 35 Probation Trust Chairs and Chief Executives, it was announced that every Service must begin preparing for core tasks such as PSR writing and offender supervision to be outsourced in a bid to save money. Without doubt this signals the beginning of the end of the Probation Service as we know it and as a distinct and unified public service. In my view it pretty much makes a nonsense of the work that has been on-going into the role of the probation service at the Justice Affairs Committee since last year, particularly as they have now completed taking evidence.
The letter states that only a limited amount of consultation is intended at this stage, but that the Government intends to announce its preferred options in the Autumn. So, as we enter the summer holiday period and Parliament prepares for recess, those at NOMS headquarters are clearly going to be busy over the next few months preparing plans for our demise. Once again we find ourselves in the invidious position of having to call upon our many friends in the Judiciary, other professions, academia and Parliament to come to our aid in order to save an honourable and vital public service. If anyone has anything positive to say about what is still sadly a much-misunderstood service, now is the time to do it.
In a recent lecture by criminologist Prof Peter Raynor at Cambridge University and entitled provocatively 'Is Probation Still Possible?' he explained that 'Probation in the post war reconstruction period was seen as important, progressive and part of the development of the Welfare State.' He quoted fellow criminologist Leon Radzinowicz who said in 1958 "If I were asked what was the most significant contribution made by this country to the new penological theory and practice which struck root in the twentieth century....my answer would be probation."
But of course that was another era when much of social and criminal justice policy was developed by means of careful consideration and deliberation and not reduced to sound bites traded in tawdry fashion as a way of gaining some short-term party-political advantage. There was a degree of consensus about such matters and politicians broadly were content to be informed by academics and learned committees. Oh for the good old days! My temporary euphoria has faded and I just know it's going to be a very grumpy few months ahead.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteYou have well captured the disgust that MS letter to Trusts has rightly generated in/beyond probation ranks.. not only did he sideline the unions( partnership/stakeholders!)but had the temerity to trumpet opening up all areas to competition.. ( core tasks ringfenced until 2012)..w/o any pretence that Noms cares a fig about the worth of the PS..
MS himself recently noted w/o a trace of irony ( speaking to Probation Employers).. ' if people notice Noms much less & talk about the PS much more, no one will be as pleased as me'!!
Citing PR McWilliams lecture title ' Is Probation Still Possible'? . Well in between listening to L Casey spout on about the need for evermore punitive mark ups for PS -true virility test.. before the Hof Cmtt looking at the Legal Aid/Sentencing of Offenders bill( Parliamentary TV) & M Spurr's abject Nomsian dereliction & ' on the cheap' privatising stunt..
Now is indeed the time to stand up & be counted.. as for the JSC rpt on the role of the PS..maybe Sir Alan Beith will now add a coda...wanted a Champion to save the jewel in the crown of the CJS!!
Regards
Mike
What offends me is the rhetoric in the MOJ's Competition Strategy for Offender Services' about the other 'successful' outcomes achieved by competition, namely Prisoner Escort, BASS, tagging and ESF funded ETE programmes. What they failed to mention is the debacle's around C-NOMIS, facilities management, the contracting out of Approved Premises in Eastern region (aborted), the murder in a BASS properties (we have 3 or 4 BASS spaces in Suffolk - Alan Sugar would be proud) and, as for the successes of the ESF projects - getting people who can read qualifications in reading is hardly addressing complex sriminiogenic needs now, is it? I simply do not accept that there any providers out there who can evidence any improvements that are not simply a case of using cheap, inexperienced and labour to do jobs that have prevoiusly been done just as well, if not a lot better, by existing structures. It is all about getting large sums of public money into the hands of private individuals.
ReplyDeleteHi Jim
ReplyDeleteYour blog sums up what seems at least in my office to have been generally ignored or dismissed. I do wonder what things will look like after the service goes through the butchers conveyor of outsourced private companies. I can't imagine that there is much money to be made in long term custody cases or those with a track record of none compliance, so I guess that's what we will be left with.
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI think your last paragraph pretty well summed up the roots of the problems we are seeing today: the short-term vote grabbing policies being implemented at the expense of long term solutions.
The introduction of the new National Standards which proclaimed discretion for professionals can be seen as the introductin as "easy to achieve" targets which will increase the attractiveness of Probation for the private sector.
It will also be interesting to see how many more NOMS directors jump ship for the private sector, in addition to the two more recent "defections", particularly once the bid process starts.
As an afterthought, I am also very concerned at the level of denial in my own area as I have heard views such as "Oh, they always say that" or "It'll never happen". Time to wake up lads and lasses - there is money to be made out there and that is what will drive through this idea!
Keep up the great blogging Jim!
@ Rob Palmer
ReplyDeletelooks to me that you need more practice in typing.
You are going to have to sharpen up if you are going to defend the probation service from more of your so called debacle's (sic).
Oh, and as I heard it the approved premises was the opposite of contracting out - it was 4 probation trusts agreeing to one trust running APs. It was aborted because the trusts couldn't work together. Presume this failure will make it easier for private/third sector to take it over in due course.
Of course a growing number of PTs are already in business with Serco and Sodexo. Lots of conversations going on right now I guess. Meanwhile on the frontline mindless rhetoric about not liking the private sector. The horse is out of the stable - ride it or get hurt in the rush.
Should that read 'ride it AND get hurt in the rush'?
ReplyDeleteTyping and proof reading aside (sorry, Anonymous, my bad ;) ), the Probation Service has proven time and time again that it has the capability and flexibility necessary to meet the requirements of the various Ministries it has been managed by. The fact that, prior to engaging with the other sectors in seeking to deliver these services, it has been necessary for NOMS to 'water down' the specifications in order to render them sufficiently attractive, is, to my mind, evidence that these other sectors lack the knowledge, experience and capacity to deliver sophisticated packages of intervention targetting complex criminogenic needs. The fact that the areas of practice that they have been involved with are driving people about, accommodating them in unsupervised settings and tying things to their legs does not, in my barely literate mind, evidence an ability to manage the complex issues that the existing Probation practitioners have had to deal with for over a century. My post was simply intended to draw attention to Michael Spurr's selective memory when it comes to trumpeting the record of success of the private sector in the delivery of services associated with community sentencing. My opposition to this 'competition' agenda is not based entirely on this one point.
@ Rob Palmer you seem to me to run the risk of retrospectively adjusting the facts to fit your conspiracy theories, and over simplifying and over personalising. Surely you do not believe that Michael Spurr writes the competition strategy himself do you? I know it’s good fun (if it wasn’t so tragic) but we will need much cooler heads if you want to do something positive about the future. Of course some people would rather just be proved right so they can say told you so, as the future happens to them. I fear that the NAPO leadership may fall into this camp.
ReplyDeleteI agree the Probation Service is flexible, but I am not sure that is going to be enough this time. The private sector is good at bidding for contracts, and working out what adds value. The move to partner with PTs is significant and might throw probation a lifeline. But it won’t be on probation’s terms. Outside the probation service people want to see more correct use of the apostrophe and less use of phrases such as ‘sophisticated packages of intervention targeting complex criminogenic needs’. Simple is good for politicians who have to communicate to the public, and shareholders who might only get paid if results warrant it.
The use of third sector ‘companies’ will be on a much more business like footing – in a way that most PTs have no idea of. There are plenty of organisations out there who fancy they can do better than probation on many (probably not all) fronts. Time will tell.
'Self Interest' will always prevail... such is human nature. I wonder which one of the waiting 'private' organisations the last poster is representing. Clearly I am on the 'other side' of this debate and it saddens me deeply that a service whose values based on fairness, justice and a want to improve the lives of some of the most socially disadvantaged for the good of society is being sold off to the highest bidder.
ReplyDeleteIt goes without saying that the private sector is good at bidding for contracts but suggesting that they are able to add value when their only motivation is profit is beyond belief - purlease - please don't insult my intelligence.
There are already plenty of organisations working WITH the Probation Service in the areas where they 'fit' - A future picture of hotch potch providers competing on rigid SLAs is not for the benefit of the recipients nor society. The privatisation of such a crucial part of the Criminal Justice System will end in tears. Unfortunately it will be too late and the public will only be aware of what probation did when they are not doing it any more!!
I am unable to articulate the level of revulsion I feel at the thought of private organisations profiting from the misery of others. The policy makers should hang their heads in shame and do their research into an organisation that is revered in others parts of the world BUT not respected within this country.
The vultures are circling ready to feast on human misery. Time will indeed tell and no doubt the Probation Service will have to be reinvented within a few decades - watch this space!
'I am unable to articulate the level of revulsion I feel at the thought of private organisations profiting from the misery of other'.
ReplyDeleteI am not a policy maker and nor do I work for a private company – but I just don’t get statements like this. How is it ok when a state funded probation officer does it but ‘misery’ when a state funded private company does it.
I do understand that you fear for your public sector pay and conditions, and I would have more sympathy if you came out and said so. But if tax payers can get the same or better service for less cost – is it so wrong to consider it? Sure you would prefer to be left alone to get on with it – but get real – who has that luxury in a time of financial crisis?
Probation officers huddled together against the big bad private sector vultures!
ReplyDeleteProbably the main reason the probation service is not trusted is the suspicion that it is full of left wing do-gooders, who care more about criminals than victims, and spend their time inventing jargon which hides their failure to reduce re-offending.
The author of this blog seems a pretty sensible chap to me - but some of the correspondents confirm the public's worse suspicions.
With respect, Anonymous (the last poster; I am not sure whether this Anonymous is the same Anonymous as the one I was responding to earlier or a new Anonynous), the stereotype of Probation staff as left wing do-gooders is more than a little patronising but the 'caring more about criminals than victims' comment is and insult we are tired of hearing. I have been doing this for over 20 years and can assure you that past, current and potential future victims of the offenders we work with are at the forefront of our minds. That is why the prisons are full of people that Probation staff have recalled (didn't know we did that, did you?). We offer a service to victims and the families of victims of offences of violence and sexual offending when the sentence is over 12 months (we would love to offer it universally but are not funded to do that). Every Probation employee includes victim awareness in the supervision plan of their offenders as a standard. The victim stuff is at the very core of what we do but, like a lot of the work we do, it is difficult to point at the final product. Our ultimate outcome is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing i.e. no re-offending. It is also almost impossible to prove causality i.e Fred stopped offending because his Probation Officer did X.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, I have spotted the typos too.
ReplyDeleteI listened to Crispin Blunt say something along the lines of competition, payment by results, restorative justice, and responding to the needs of local communities = rehabilitation revolution. I also hear him praise probation, but in truth I think his days are numbered and the future for probation is more in the hands of number 10 and the treasury. I don't think they know much about probation and care even less.
ReplyDeleteSince 2007 the provision of probation services has not been the preserve of the probation trusts. I am surprised it has taken this long to get to this point of talking about wide scale competition. I don't see Probation Trusts surviving in their current form. I think they will have to either merge with each other or the private sector.