Saturday, 17 August 2013

The Silence is Broken

I'm extremely grateful to John Steele, who must be applauded for deciding to pop his head above the parapet yesterday and speak up in defence of probation's leadership. I've given my reply below and would very much welcome hearing what others think.

Jim,

I have reluctantly decided to take issue with you because I follow your blog and respect your views and your willingness to say what many of your colleagues are thinking. But you are both wrong and unfair in your criticism of the leadership of probation over the Government’s changes.

The Probation Association, Probation Chiefs Association and many Trusts and individual leaders made their opposition to many of the proposed changes absolutely clear during the consultation period. They continue to provide candid advice as the changes are implemented, but in private.

It has to be in private for two very good reasons. We live in a democracy and the Government of the day has the right not only to introduce new policies but to expect public servants to implement them to the best of their ability. Think back to the changes that governments of the past have made that you supported. How would you have felt then if senior public servants had actively worked to frustrate them?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the changes senior leaders have a personal responsibility to the public and to service users to ensure that they are made as sensibly and safely as possible. It is only through providing private advice whilst working constructively with officials at the MoJ that this will be achieved. Anything less would betray everything that probation stands for.


Senior leaders across the country are at the same time encouraging and supporting staff to consider forming mutuals (Trusts themselves are debarred from doing this) and working hard to ensure that staff are treated as fairly and transparently as possible as the changes work through. 

Nothing I have said is meant to suggest that unions and their members should not continue to oppose policies they disgaree with, and seek to represent their members views and interests. 

But please don’t let your frustration over Government policy lead you to blame the Probation leadership. They are doing their duty to everyone involved as well as they can in very difficult circumstances.



John,

You may feel reluctant about responding, but thank goodness you have because to be perfectly frank the present silence is untenable and insulting to the workforce and wider public. Probation is a vitally important public service with a proud history, exemplary performance and unparallelled integrity. Probation must have a voice and we are entitled to look to the leadership to provide it. As we all know, nature abhors a vacuum and the void must be filled in some way. 

I'm afraid I must disagree about being wrong or even unfair. Being part of a democracy is about rather more than just putting a cross on a bit of paper once every five years. I'm not aware that abolishing the present Probation Service was ever part of any political party's election manifesto and as such the Electorate have never been asked to voice an opinion on the matter.

We all know that the overwhelming submissions to government regarding their Transforming Rehabilitation proposals were hostile. Within the profession we know the ideas are barking mad, risky and a perfect recipe for an almighty omnishambles. Not a shred of evidence has been forthcoming to substantiate the destruction of the existing independent Probation Trusts and we all know it is only political dogma that is driving the plan forward.

With the greatest respect, in such a situation where the very survival of the profession is at stake, whether holding public office or not, history is going to look very unkindly indeed upon those in positions of authority who did nothing, and said nothing publicly in defence of a vital public service. As has been said before, the Nuremburg Defence will not suffice and the Probation Association and Probation Chief's Association had the perfect opportunity to speak with one voice and tell the government they were wrong. 

The trouble is that there are those of us who have always suspected that some Chief's were rather more keen on Transforming Rehabilitation than they would be prepared to say publicly, so unanimity within the PA or PCA was always probably a forlorn hope. However, many of us have been truely amazed that not one Chief has been prepared to put their job on the line in the name of trying to save the Service. Not one Board has been prepared to go public and say what they think about the shameful way the MoJ is behaving. What about the contract each Trust has with the MoJ? What on earth is the point of independent Boards if they don't discharge their wider responsibility to the public by making a stand?

There are colleagues who are beginning to say that in view of management's utter sell-out, the whole ethical basis of our work is bankrupt and it's not worth fighting to save probation, it's time to get out instead. The profession is in utter turmoil because of misguided and unfounded policies and is likely to lose some of it's most experienced and dedicated staff, and the response is a collective silence?! 

The whole business of mutuals is a cruel red herring and all those involved must know it. There's no time to put a meaningful bid together, and no guarantee of winning a bid. There will not be enough jobs for everyone, and the terms and conditions will be worse. It's just another facet of this whole cruel omnishambles and all citizens, including those in public office, have a duty to hold the government of the day to account for their policies and actions and speak up in the wider public interest. Sometimes it means taking a stand on a matter of principle.

Finally, of course this is a difficult time for Chief's and they have a difficult job to do, but whilst remaining silent what many are actually doing is applying for one of the 21 posts as heads of Community Rehabilitation Companies, or for one of the remaining senior positions within the National Probation Service. Whatever way you choose to wrap that up, the workforce are entitled to call it looking after themselves.

25 comments:

  1. Netnipper: Mr Steele blames democracy. We must obey our political masters. I remember Clive Pontings who showed principles and personal courage when he told an unpalatable truth. I think Steele equates democracy with public obedience. He calls himself a 'public servant' who professes to tell the truth in private. He should consider what is in the public interest and if the PA and PCA truly believe that the TR proposals increase risk to the public, then a real servant to the public would do just that - speak out. How easily this shower was gagged.

    Is Steele unaware of the numerous U-turns in policy this government has made because of lawful democratic opposition? You are right to say the Associations could have done more – they could have taken a democratic vote to see if there was a majority in favour of opposing TR. Maybe there wasn't - but at least we would know their true colours - as the so-called 'senior leader' (sticks in my craw) are preoccupied with their personal ambitions. They ain't leaders, they are lickspittle.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found John Steeles post quite sickening. It's obvious that he has difficulty with his conscience but the lure of personal advancement is to strong. A bit like gollums struggles in Lord of the Rings. It must truely be an awful place to be, knowing whats right, but deliberately choosing a different path.
    I note too his use of language, 'YOUR COLLEAUGES', quite clearly his seperation from the service is advanced. All for one and one for all? Maybe not eh?
    It's an odd thing really to think that those who have climbed to the highest possitions within the service are now showing that they are the least committed to it. Life I guess is just for taking what you can and sod everyone else. I'm alright Jack.
    You know what? I'd sooner have my sleep at night.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Steels post is typical of Probation Management's position. To use previous Govmt policy as an example of how they as managers have to behave in a certain way is specious. The TR agenda will destroy us and is therefore different to every other change in our history. By co-operating you are signing our death warrant. Weazel words, get a backbone John Steele!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whatever the views of the contributors to this blog - John Steele has done something that a whole host of people want to do - discuss the proposal. That he has chosen this forum and not various other places is excellent. Lets not stifle this discussion because as we all know , our argument is solid and will stand up to scrutiny , if this is to become the "sounding board" for the TR process , bring it on !
    Keep it civil and win through reason and solid argument ....I look forward to John's continued participation in the debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes as I say John Steele is to be applauded for speaking up. He doesn't say, but it's probable to assume that he's a Board member and not an employee. Lets have a civilised and reasoned debate.

      Delete
  5. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that "candid advice" is being offered to the MoJ in private - but really, what's the difference between that and what Jim (and many others) call "silence" if that advice is being ignored?

    There's a parallel with what is happening in Government - the Lib Dems are kidding themselves that they are ameliorating the worst excesses of the rabid Tory right, when what they are really doing is enabling them, and they are going to be punished for this in 2015.

    There will be a real crisis in Probation within the next 18-24 months, and saying "well we told them what would happen in private" is going to be no defence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Probation leadership lost for words? Why not use the Chatham House Rule? Simply select the Anonymous option in the drop down list below. Ta-daa!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Surely in our line of work, for example if a case comes in with a frankly bat shit crazy idea that wont work you don't facilitate it, you call it out.

    Come on speak out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. After reading the above by John Steele, board chair of Surrey and Sussex Probation Trust, I can only say he has provided an opinion I can only call disgusting. It is this deceitful approach that has colluded with those in the government that are intent on dismantling probation; and with these actions that means it is probation senior management that has betrayed every person on probation and all who work for probation. This idea that probation senior management are doing their best for service users and the public is utter rubbish, because dismantling and privatising probation will end the 106 year old probation service and replace it with the worst possible service which will probably be run by G4S. For senior management to argue they are bound by government proposals is also rubbish as dismantling and privatising probation is not our business at all. As I've said many times before, these probation senior managers have no intention to save probation and are not fit for purpose. I doubt Richard Branson would be making such a disgusting statement to his staff if the government were proposing to take Virgin Airways from him and close it down. I do not applause John Steele for "speaking out" and repeating this mantra that probation senior management has been spouting for the past 8 months. Probation senior management from every probation trust are to blame for the pending demise of the probation service, and to defend them is a further insult to the 18000 hard working probation staff facing redundancy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although I can't agree with the content, at least Mr Steele had the decency to discuss the issue. We know chiefs/boards have been 'gagged' under the guise of being in public office, but come on....you are all going to lose your jobs anyway, so at least do so with some dignity.
      Think back to the governments' criticism of the NHS for sacking and gagging whistle blowers only to enact the same anti democratic blocking of discussion.
      My hope, like others, is that more join this debate (you can use anon profile!) rather than thinking about how their 'pay off' will be reduced for stepping out of line. The silence is sickening..now where is my nice glossy leaflet espousing 'probation values'.....
      NB: It would be nice if the likes of Prof Paul Senior et al, blogged his views (I don't do tweets) as academic institutions have nothing to lose..

      Delete
  9. I know that some leaders will privately air their feelings, John didn't need to spell that out. I think he may have missed the point. It's right that some topics need to be conducted behind "closed doors" so to speak but is this one of them? I wonder why people keep quite. In John's case it's through- what I would consider- misguided loyalty as to what makes a good public servant. Whilst I can understand why this viewpoint would help one sleep at night, it surely misses the point of what makes a "good" public servant (in my opinion at any rate). Those good old cognitive distortions we all have eh. John's letter didn't disgust me, I felt sorry for him. I wouldn't want to be in any leadership positions (right now or ever). I do wonder what I would do.
    C

    ReplyDelete
  10. To be fair, our 'leaders' are leading nothing and are as powerless as the rest of us. Probation has been the subject of a hostile takeover by the Tory Party and their lackies in NOMS. The evidence of the futility of TR is everywhere but is being ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John Steele hasn't spelt anything out other then everything is being done behind closed doors. As a member of the public (not the service) how dare he point out the principles of democracy. Just what information is being shared with the public? Far less then that being shared with the service and I'm aware thats very little.
    May I remind you Mr. Steele probation is a PUBLIC service, and you have no right what-so-ever to make decisions on behalf of the public behind closed doors. You are as you say a PUBLIC servent.
    If there's nothing wrong with whats going on then tell the public, be open be honest and show some integrety.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have written to my local MP to exprss the despair I feel about our impending doom, and at the lack of public debate, he's currently on holiday, but I am assured he'll get back to me. I felt marginally better having expressed myself. I have also been reading the discussion regarding 'senior management' and I am reminded of something I have thoght about on and off for some time; SPO's/TM's - there seems to me to have been a dumbing down of the callibare of SPO's in recent year. Those appointed have been a mystery to me, people with very little imagination, courage and or ability. That saying about being promoted beyond their abilty,comes to mind or were they removed from front line work, save they may embarras the organisation, and are better suited to sitting in their own rooms, ticking boxes and countersigning! Consequently, I am not shocked at the lack of backbone and resiliance being demonstarted by management generally.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "management working hard to ensure staff are being treated as fairly as possible?" after 27 years service I was put on competence procedures yesterday. 84 clients to supervise and encourage to do their best by the courts their victims their communities and themselves and desist from the harm they do to each of those sections in society. Entrenched alcohol and drug users, domestic violence and safeguarding children cases, mental health and in some cases extreme violence in their history. But warned that if I don't stop doing one to one work and start producing eight layer 3 oasys reports a week and keep up to date with the 84 inputting into the n delius tracking system (cheaper than tagging I suppose) I will be sacked for being incompetent. What's fair about that? Meanwhile those staff that are being encouraged to form mutuals are doing just that without the bother of the moral minority trying to uphold this once great service's values and beliefs, we are far too busy with our workloads and distracted by the competence procedure to see how far on they are in feathering their own nests .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a ridiculous caseload, is that normal? do you work in London?

      Delete
    2. To the colleague with 27 years service and now finding themselves under competency procedures, I fear your experience is far from untypical and so very, very sad.

      In the middle of all this TR shite we might tend to forget that many colleagues who dare to carry on practicing probation AND try and cope with OASys and Delius face an impossible situation where either their health may be affected, or they are driven out.

      Please stay in touch and I hope you will be able to call upon the support of colleagues and possibly union representation in the coming weeks. Would you mind if I highlighted your predicament, suitably anonymised further?

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete
  14. I agree re dumbing down of SPO's - it reflects the target driven ethic, where ticking the boxes is all that matters. Many PO's are more able than their SPO, its just that they cannot bring themselves to do the mindnumbing corporate thingy + lose client contact. In my experience over 20 + years the best SPO's led by example, working longer and harder than the team and putting the interests of the client, and in turn wider society at the centre of considerations. This did not ignore risk and public protection issues. It was always about the relationship with clients as a base from which to promote change. Sadly these days we are too busy ticking the boxes with far too many "cases" to stand a chance of developing meaningful work. This said I'm sure there are some colleagues who are able to do good work sometimes in spite of the often meaningless target/tick box constraints.
    Great blog Jim, I hope more snr management feel able to join the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jim,

    It is clear that many colleagues above are barely coping with the suffocatingly oppressive performance m/ment regime, bedevilled by top down targets & compliant time servers, that has so beset the PS in recent times find this blog a welcome confessional!....I do sorely identify with colleague of 27 yrs....the use/misuse of Capability/Disciplinary procedures is often a prelude to the' managed exit' of those who do not toe the line..( my outlet is the CCJS practitioner blog- after a mere 20 yrs!)...need to feel that in the feverish rush to dismantle the PS the front line voice is heard, ...I recall challenging Noms supremo PW -Wee Willie! ( he really did not like that designation!) about the absence of Snr PS m/ment in Noms .. he opined that ' if they were up to it' they would find a place..( recalling the shambolic C-Nomis episode was led by 2 ex-CPO's!).. sadly the PS has been over-managed & ( with some honourable exceptions) poorly led for sometime ..the PCA/PA had some moral purchase when they were off the leash.. but have it appears kowtowed to Uber-Commissar Grayling's admonishments & do his bidding . but if you look at the recent research by Mawby& Worral on front line practice ( reviewed in forthcoming PJ ) the principled commitment by practitioners to working in the best traditions of the PS ...still offers a corrective to many ( not all ) of the self serving & vacuous utterances of the remote technocrats who seem to populate so many probation boards....keep the fight going ... & maybe when CG addresses the World Conference on Probation in October on TR... he might recall Cameron's much reviled promise to ' protect the front line at all costs'!

    Regards

    Mike

    Ps - article by S Caulkin worth perusing :

    http://www.respublica.org.uk/item/Mid-Staffs-shows-everything-that-s-rotten-in-the-house-of-management

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,

      Many thanks as always for your informed reflections - just one clarification - the Noms supremo you refer to I guess was Phil Wheatley who later became a G4S consultant?

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete
  16. I note the World Conference on Probation is taking place in London 8 - 10 October. Surely the perfect opportunity to bring to Mr Graylings attention in a very public way exactly how we are feeling about his planned destruction of probation? (Just a thought...............)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I applaud John Steele for speaking, but I guess he now wishes he hadn't. He's outed himself as an administrator rather than a leader, and very representative of those who are administering us now. By the way some people in our Trust tried to get a mutual together from bottom up. They received no support because the managers didn't like the competition....so it's a top down mutual for us (if that isn't a contradicton in itself).

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is refreshing to see one of the enablers popping in (if only to announce that they’re all innocent).

    It’s a matter of collective responsibility. Like being in cabinet, apparently.

    Whatever. Actually it’s about naked application of power ----- and the fact that the ideologues in control of the country have zero mandate for what they’re doing, makes it more scintillating for them as they do it.

    Thanks Clegg, for setting such a good example to those below you in the troughing chain.

    Restraining not enabling. Wottajoke!

    How very depressing this is.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Whatever happened to John Steele? Not up for the debate?
    Gutless as usual!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess he accepts there is not likely to be a meeting of minds on this.

      Delete