Pick of the Week 17

CRC probation officers are being told they will hold about 50 medium risk cases. Many unpredictable DV cases. Will also have to cover Marac and in addition assist PSO's or oversee some of their work and advise if need to pass to a PO. Basically doing some of the work of middle managers who will soon be reduced by 50%! 

In addition struggling with admin staff moving to hubs and some offices have no reception or admin to field calls so we are all doing that too, PO or PSO, we just muck in. Failing IT systems and waiting days to get IT problems sorted. In addition some CRC staff are having to interview in public buildings or share a single interview room with multiple colleagues. 

The general public will not be aware of this at the moment but may object if they knew or not take little jimmy to the creche there! I would like to see a staff survey perhaps tied in with a service user survey to build a picture of exactly what is going on and then publish the findings. A comparison with criminal justice social work in Scotland would also be helpful to see if things are any better there. They have been unaffected as separate system and social work qualification is still required here! The loss of this professional and relevant qualification seemed to herald a decline and undermining of our role.

******
As has been observed on & by this blog for some time now, the 'reality of probation' is that probation as a noble profession has been assigned to history, it has been fatally wounded & profits for privateers are paramount. Individuals are stoically fighting to maintain a level of service provision that is meaningful, but at huge personal cost.

Grayling, his acolytes & those who eagerly collaborated in this vile social experiment should be prosecuted for gross negligence in public office. They have damaged or destroyed careers, charitable organisations & peoples' lives. They should be required to make recompense from their own deep pockets - pockets filled with public money &/or gratuities from private companies. They should be exposed as the charlatans & fraudsters they truly are. They should be ashamed, but sadly they are without capacity for shame, they are without conscience.

******
A well written and recognisable piece by the Probation Officer in the Guardian. It communicated on a number of levels including an emotional appeal. It would be interesting to see such articles appear in a wider cross section of the media, in particular the more right wing press, where I imagine that readership might be less aware of the plight of many public service workers and those members of the public (all of us) who lose out as a result. The account is one that might have been written by any number of public sector workers. Maybe more articles could be submitted with an ambition to find a wider audience?

******
It was a good article, and I identified with much of it. And we do need more of similar in different places. Maybe we need more articles by or on behalf of those receiving the 'services' and how they came to need them in the first place. And how we criminalise people at the drop of a hat, sometimes from an early age. A sustained campaign would be good. We can't rely on the Howard league to do it all for us. And I don't think the public would respond primarily to the plight of probation staff. I think we would come across as feeling more sorry for ourselves than for victims of crime and service users put together. Sadly I don't think that those in charge at present will want the awareness they will need in order to be able to find it in their hearts to change things. They are hard - hearted.

******
There never was a golden age. If you take out TR from this article, you have a description of probation in the years leading up to the split, not least the 70% of time spent in IT processing on substandard systems. Compared to the costs of imprisonment, sufficient funds have never been invested in rehabilitation – or the causes of crime: poor education, poverty, drugs, etc... Structurally unequal societies manufacture crime and discrimination. Frontline probation work, especially since the cognitive-behavioural revolution, has always been about dealing with generations of failing individuals who are part of the fallout of the wider social failings. There will always be crime, but, as the evidence shows, it prospers more where there is economic inequality and lots of law and order rhetoric.

******
I would like to know how frontline staff are going to cope when we are reduced by 40%? What tasks can we let go of in order that we can keep up with the incessant demands upon our time? We are running at full speed. Working Links seem to think that the answer is to get rid of the 'troublemakers' and assume that newly qualified staff will be putty in their hands. I can tell you now that the newly qualified staff I have spoken to are no push overs and they are as appalled by the destruction of the service as anyone else.

******
For me the PI was born in unfortunate circumstances but that aside the concept is one I support. Professional standards and values, the idea of a body that seeks to protect, enhance and promote the gem and integrity that is the Probation ideal needs supporting in my view. To fail to put fear, grievances. appreciable as they be, aside will I believe be to the detriment of Probation as a recognised profession.

******
I'm afraid they aren't going to get much support from us broken band of POs. Unfortunately we've nothing left to lose and we realise no one cares that we've been destroyed. It seems to me we just keep trying our best to do what we can of our job until we find a way out.

******
I believe that had the PI developed prior to TR it would have flourished. I don't see how it can maintain professional standards when it failed to speak out against privatisation of probation services.

******
Privatisation and profit was and remains a huge contention for me too, particularly in our work. The modus operandi as Chris Grayling stated at the time was, 'I don't want to pay for a service I want to pay for results.' He is a, 'here today gone tomorrow politician.' I think the PI were likely in an invidious position, power as we know can be abusive and executive power is no exception. 'Probation' in my view, a hundred or more years in its history, will be here tomorrow. That is where my mind's eye is and PI can develop as a champion for the cause if given a chance. If it fails then we look elsewhere I suggest. I just do not see a credible alternative at this juncture.

******
Exactly, whatever the PI may say now, it has remained deafeningly silent over TR, the methods of implementation and the damage wrought to professional practice as a result. I will never join; not in a million years.

******
Why did NAPO support PI's birth if it does as you say it spells it's own end. NAPO surely saw some shared aims. They can co - exist and co - operate I would argue.

******
Dunno, possibly an attempt to be seen to be supportive of the directive labelled 'TR' (after all probation has always evolved to accommodate political and legislative changes of direction), without fully appreciating the ramifications of doing so on this occasion. A bit more clear sighted focus might have helped - and stronger representation of what the Members were saying.The rush to 'cosy up' to the idea made many Members feel they were being sold out.

******
Here's the thing. I am knackered, I have been at it all bloody day, trying to keep my head above water, my clients well-served and the public safe. During my working day I deleted Lord knows how many emails forwarded on by my manager "FYI" containing a plethora of training opportunities. I don't know if the PI is a good or bad thing, (starting to think it's a good thing) but we are drowning here in a sea of crap IT, lack of accommodation for our clients, a weekly round of contributions to the leaving present for a redundant colleague, the trauma of the departure of the redundant colleague, the effort of getting other equally shat on agencies to step up to MAPPA. Hell, this feels like an add on I haven't the time to engage with.

******
Sounds like my day! The only thing that keeps me going is my lovely colleagues who have gone through this experience with me. Unfortunately they are becoming fewer and fewer and the replacements seem to just want a job not a beloved career I hate what Probation has become.

******
The PI had every opportunity to speak out against TR and the destruction of a previous award winning public service, it failed to do so and I will not join for free, let alone pay. And perhaps Helen Schofield, you may wish to note that CRCs also work with ex veterans and not just NPS, have you consulted CRCs to ask about there strategy for working with this group of vulnerable adults? You may also like to consider that many of the staff working in the CRCs across this country are indeed staff shafted by MoJ. They are the very same people who helped probation trusts meet their gold standard service and who were credited with good or outstanding performance until Grayling destroyed our Service. 

It's not the staff doing the daily job that has resulted in the failure of TR, it's the models of delivery having to be run on a shoe string because the MoJ couldn't get their figures right and greedy profiteers put money before the needs of people, something the Tory Government promotes. Shame on Grayling, shame on Tory and Lib Dem government and MPs, shame on the majority of Chiefs Officers of Probation Trusts, shame on other public sector workers and indeed the public for allowing this mess to happen. The world was warned but no one listened and now we all pay the price, the disaster unfolds and everyone is now gasping.

******
"The use of the three terms "probation, rehabilitation and resettlement" is very deliberate in the Probation Institute. Although we have retained the name "probation" in our title (it would be a travesty to lose it) we are very clear in our wish to include practitioners, managers and leaders right across all the organisations working in this field".

This statement sums up what the PI is. Not for probation, not for probation practitioners, and the bottom line not a "probation" institute. Yes we have called for a professional association for many years (a role Napo should have filled) but this is not it. I know nobody that's joined and I'm not surprised.

******
Here lies a the very real dilemma of the 'Duty Of Care' which many of those reading this Blog would have hoped/wanted from PI. However, I also accept it was never going to 'stand against' TR or pro-actively campaign to highlight its impact on our Staff/Communities/Working arrangements. Although, I do value it drawing the public to a number of recent damning Inspections. Rather, it seeks to salvage some of the remnants of Probations Essence, Rich Legacy, Identity and Professionalism. I too echo many of the sentiments shared above and feel that sense of powerlessness and shame neither, to have the words and or the voice to consistently 'Stand Up/By a Much Loved Public Service. Many of whom, still firmly believe 'Unification' is the only way forward. 

I acknowledge that the PI is working on the basis of 'Moving Forward' and that of 'letting go' of the past and needing to embrace/work with something that many are still fundamentally opposed too. That's where our thoughts, feelings, heart and voice remain in an altogether different place and that's where for me the dilemma remains. Sending best wishes to all our staff/Unions and PI as we all continue in altogether different and increasingly divergent ways to try to make sense of TR. Also to ALL those staff we have and continue to lose along the way.

******
The government like to blame the use of psychoactive drugs for all the ills of today's penal system. But that's just spin. They certainly impact on daily life in prisons, but staff shortages and the impact those shortages have on daily routine and facilities for prisoners is certainly a far greater driver for the growth of violence and disturbances in prisons then drugs. There are far too many people in prison in the first place, and increasingly it's becoming a place to house those with mental health problems as mental health services in the community continue to be cut back. The number of people walking the landings with serious mental health problems is a far more dangerous concern then psychoactive drugs.

******
I agree, it's not the drugs, as the truism goes, it's the economy, stupid. The MoJ are going to provide a cash injection of 14m. In the last five years Noms have inflicted cuts of £1bn and the cuts to the public sector prisons were £334m. And they did it through fraudulent benchmarking which was the cover story for making the cuts. The reduction in prison officers and in particular the loss of experienced staff is what has plunged prisons into crisis. It was said at the time that cuts would be dangerous to health & safety - the death and harm statistics, neglect of the mentally-ill, are now bearing out those predictions.

******
Another knee jerk reaction? Problem solving courts would only work if all the relevant services are in place and can be accessed quickly! With offenders waiting months for counselling and scarce resources this will only flag up the deficiencies. What we need are better resourced services and more time with offenders. Magistrates are already sentencing without PSR's in many cases! I could do so much more to support my caseload and still try to make some time to take vulnerable offenders to appointments they may otherwise often miss or advocate on their behalf regarding housing or mental health services, but I am overstretched and this will only get worse with further cuts as part of so called transforming rehabilitation.

******
Article from the Howard League doing the rounds. The private companies whinging that they were misled and now they are losing money! Hey folks, this is not a game of monopoly. You gambled and were prepared to risk public safety for profit and now you are throwing your dummy out of the cot because MoJ is refusing to let you get away with it. End the contracts then and hand the keys back and do everyone a favour. Get on with what you do best. Selling brie, shoes or dodgy dealings in Saudi Arabia are much better suited to you than public protection. Stick with what you know and let the real professionals get back to work.

******
I work as custody probation officer in a prison and whilst am extremely busy as we all are, I will say that OMU across the disciplines are extremely stretched. Senior Prison officers who are supposed to be managing offenders sentences are always tasked out on the wings dealing with self harming, assaults on staff and offender on offender assaults, escorts to hospitals and covering staff shortages within the regime due to extreme staff shortages. This is not what they signed up too and in turn leaves administration staff to pick up work in their absence. Unfortunately, admin staff are briefed to request email as they won't know who they are talking to. If OM'S were able to get in with their contracted role, that line if communication would be possible and negate need for email request. 

As custody probation officer, I am in contact with all OM'S in community on my caseload so all know who to contact and deal with issues as they arise. That is because, although I am extremely busy, I am in the fortunate position to be on hand to deal with issues as they arise. The government led benchmarking exercise and fair and sustainable initiative was unrealistic and like TR and TTG has left absolute chaos within each establishment. Please don't think that requests via email are prisons being awkward but more a case of no resources. Prisons as are probation are in a right mess at the moment.

******
I was surprised to read the FT article yesterday, especially as it wasn't on the back of any particular event or incident. It was more the providers whinging, it was a straight forward accusation, the government misled us and sold us a pup. I expected more to be said in today's more 'lowbrow' press, but not a mention. So why yesterday and why the FT?
I have no idea really, but it leads to a lot of head scratching and pondering. It could be perhaps that the providers (especially with the Working Links saga posted above), that maybe the providers are arguing both ends, to create a space where they can simply step away from the contract with minimal penalty, or better still, have the government take the contracts back? I get the feeling that TR is being spoken about very seriously in quiet little rooms in Whitehall at the moment, and not just on this blog.

******
Probation in London has always been particular challenge to run even when it was being done by people who more or less knew what they were doing. It continues to have a transient offender population, higher risk offenders, lot's of prisons, and suffers staff retention problems that require you to constantly recruit. It's a special case just as policing is a special case in the capital and needs careful handling. LondonCRC is now a very unattractive and hazardous place to work with no light at the end of the tunnel and incentives to go the extra mile. 

I have not met one member of staff who can honestly say they wouldn't jump ship if they could get the same money elsewhere. MTCnovo and those they have appointed to run LCRC are a bad joke. The former senior managers all got their enhanced voluntary redundancies and some of them are now showing up cashing in on bits of work and clearing off again. But the rest of us are saddled with a ridiculous bunch of probation amateurs consisting of prison service senior job hoppers and assorted opportunists who seem to pop up when there's a job going and jump off the moving train shortly before it crashes. We didn't choose to work for who now blame us for the failure of their ridiculous untested operating model that we all told them wouldn't work. Unfortunately no one imagined it could get this bad.