"I look forward to meeting the Prisons and Probation minister Rory Stewart this morning. I’ll make the case that the voluntary sector should play a central role in redesigning probation, and highlight the financial and evidential contribution of charitable foundations to the CJS."
"The meeting with Minister Stewart was a positive, robust and interesting discussion. He put forward a lot of ideas for positive change, and wants to work with communities, civil society and philanthropy in identifying solutions to the current challenges. An encouraging start."The author is Max Rutherford a policy wonk with ACF, the Association of Charitable Foundations. This from Linked In:-
I am an experienced social justice professional with a strong reputation, a diverse network and a proven track record for achieving structural social change that improves lives, increases service effectiveness and reduces inequalities. I have significant expertise in social policy, research, project management, partnership-working and grant-making.
I have worked in the voluntary sector, parliament and government, led high-profile campaigns, and delivered short and long-term programmes. I serve on a diverse range of boards and committees, and as a trustee to two charities. I regularly brief ministers and officials, engage the media, present at and chair conferences and high-level events, and author policy and research publications.
Recent board and committee roles include:
- Charity SORP Committee member - review and make recommendations for changes to charity accounting practice, convened by UK and Ireland's four charity regulators (2018-);
- Trustee of Voluntary Impact – Regional infrastructure charity (2017-);
- Trustee of Headway Northampton – Brain injury rehabilitation charity (2015-);
- Associate of the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (Scotland) – to contribute to its practice, research, and knowledge exchange (2016-8);
- Chair of Association of Charitable Foundations’ Criminal Justice Funder Group – convening and chairing meetings of senior foundation representatives (2014-8);
- Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Leadership Board member – advising ministers and officials on policy and strategy (2015-8);
- AGENDA (the Alliance for women and girls at risk) steering group member - to oversee the delivery of the campaign, finances and governance (2016-8);
- Young Review steering group member – to support Baroness Young’s report on the over-representation of black and Muslim young men in the criminal justice system (2015-8);
- London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime – working group member on a multi-£million policing intervention project (2015-8)
This from ACF website:-
ACF is the membership body for UK foundations and grant-making charities. Driven by a belief that foundations are a vital source for social good, our mission is to support them to be ambitious and effective in the way that they use their resources. We do this through the provision of policy and advocacy, research and information, and a wide-ranging programme of events and learning. Our 350 members collectively hold assets of around £50bn and give over £2.5bn annually.
Founded in 1989, ACF was established as a member-led association that should be fully responsive to the concerns and priorities of its members.
Dear Rory,
ReplyDeleteI went to good schools & university (Oxford Uni, BA Classics, MSc Criminology), won the Professor Roger Hood Prize for Outstanding Performance in MSc in Criminology and Criminal Justice at University of Oxford in June 2006, mixed with the 'right people' (Research Assistant House of Commons June 2006 – October 2006), have the social skills to operate in a boardroom environment and need quite a substantial income to keep me in the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed.
What's not to like?
Max.
Too funny !! but also tragic as that's what we're up against
DeletePrivate sector, voluntary sector, mixed-economy - they're all just means by which the privileged commodotise, exploit &/or capitalise upon the poor, the dysfunctional, the disadvantaged & the desperate.
DeleteCan the public sector be accused of similar re-probation? My personal view is that when its structured a la NOMS/HMPPS then 'Yes', i.e. predicated on targets, performance-related pay, bonuses & honours. Remove 'marketisation', financial incentives & the political 'success imperative' - you have (hopefully) a fairly flat organisational structure with limited layers, limited interference & a focus upon meaningful engagement with service-users as opposed to the whims or gut-feelings of individuals in that organisation.
"When I began, the management layer was much less, and the people who were at the top had character, and had personality, and they were robust in their views. If you're robust in your views today you don't get to the top. So if you do get there you're just a cypher. Your views have been ironed out of you. So you become a little Hitler, strutting around terribly self-important."
DeleteRichard Spence, Guardian Public Voices, July 2002
Remembering the work programme (another Grayling cock up), the voluntary sector found itself in a very uncomfortable position.
ReplyDeleteHaving called out the government on its welfare policies and benefit sanctions, it suddenly found itself being part of the process. Such a conflict of interest caused it much reputational damage.
I wonder if they've learned any lessons from that experience?
Many people that have to engage with probation services have mental health issues, addiction issues, housing needs, all things that the third sector often claim government policy is failing in.
So I'm not sure how they intend to square that circle. I'm sure charities who've said too many mentally ill people are being sent to prison for instance will incur some pretty negative response if they're seen as part of the process that can effect someone's recall to prison who has mental health problems.
I just see many conflicts of interest arising between contractual obligations and organisational ethics.
'Getafix
Unfortunately all people can see are £££ signs and how they will be able to receive monies from the government as the current CRC providers have - however we have potentially a " No deal /bad deal "Brexit looming so don't see how any one will be able to be bailed out within a failing economy - very few actually seem to care about service users or staff , as previously mentioned on here long gone are those days !!!!
DeleteCriminal Justice matters are a state responsibility and there is no place for private or third sector providers. Conflict of interest remains inevitable if funding is linked to performance.
ReplyDeleteThe elephant in the consultation as articulated by Russell Webster and others ad nauseum:
ReplyDelete'I think I have a clear-headed view of the political realities which mean that a “mixed-economy” is inevitable (it’s unlikely that a Conservative Government would admit that a privatisation project has failed and Chris Grayling still sits at the Cabinet table). Nevertheless, I find it difficult to make positive, concrete suggestions to the well-acknowledged difficulties besetting the modern probation service.
For me, the root of all these problems is the design of a split service. Everyone affected by probation — courts, PCCs, partners, victims and offenders themselves — sees probation as a single service whose aim is to protect the public and help offenders desist from crime. The National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies don’t think like this, focusing only on their own remit and responsibilities.
This fragmentation is the root cause of many, indeed most, of the key questions raised by the MoJ be they sentencer confidence in community sentences, better through-the-gate work or common professional training.
It is for the elected government of the day to decide whether probation should be a public or private enterprise but for the life of me, I find it hard to see how the current two-tier model (which the current consultation has re-confirmed) will succeed.'
I think that the fundamental flaw with probation services currently is that it's being used as a jack of all trades and master of non.
DeleteI take the view that probation work should be far more then enforcing and monitoring licence conditions.
Perhaps there is a separation or split needed with licence conditions and monitoring being something different to probation work?
A totally different agency to inforce and monitor licences, and a probation service tasked with only doing probation work.
Public sector probation services, private sector enforcement enforcement services?
'Getafix
Being serious or stirring debate? I'll ponder the idea Getafix but my emotive reaction is one of shock and hostility.
DeleteAnnon @ 17.36
DeleteBeing serious or stirring debate?
O
I think both really.
Monitoring licence conditions is an easy sell to an outsourced market. Government happy.
Probation services however should be a service that's more complex then just making sure people keep appointments, are where they're supposed to be and compliant.
Probation always focused on rehabilitation, now its a service that enforces rules.
Rehabillitation /Retribution (or part of that retribution system), that's a big problem for probation at the moment.
'Getafix
Name that year:
Delete* the home office minister was last night forced to abandon his plan to rebrand the probation service as the "community punishment and rehabilitation service".
Same year:
Delete"We are a law enforcement agency. It's what we are, it's what we do."
More proof of the merry-dance we've been led on over the last god-knows-how-many years:
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/aug/01/publicvoices
Here's the link to the Richard Spence article referenced in the above:
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/jul/25/publicvoices1
"I was an ordinary, main-grade, what I'd call bottom-of-the heap probation officer, and I really enjoyed that: dealing with the punters face to face.
The ambitious ones went up the ladder and became chiefs, but the trouble with the probation service today is that a lot of the people who got to the top weren't up to the mark.
They've basically destroyed the probation service. It's fallen apart in the last couple of years - at least in London, which is the bit I know. The financial situation is absolutely disastrous here, they're millions up the Swannee. Top-heavy with middle management, lots of people with important titles, putting nice suits on, going to meetings with coffee and biscuits, setting these ludicrous targets - but because they've cut back so much, not enough infantry to do the frontline work. Which means the service cannot do its most important thing, which is to see clients face to face, and to write assessment reports on them."
A lovelly, lovelly man who was at Alfred Street Office in Bow just before I arrived in Feb 1991 -
DeleteThe Crapo business was when Martin Narey was in charge because he made a joke about it in a private conversation at some event - I presume it was just before the New Choreography about 2000/2001
DeleteWhat made us a Law Enforcement Agency in part was the 1991 Criminal Justice Act that turned probation orders from a discharge to a sentence and was heavily laden with template forms that had the word offender emblazoned on them when we were trying to work with supervisees so they felt like part of regular society and that they could do better for themselves by not being an offendor - despite the change.
DeleteIt was about ten years before it really seemed to sink in and Napo - might even still have been the National Association.... then did not mount a campaign and we just got on trying to ignore it but with Ministers saying we are Law Enforcement - it is what we do - we had no chance.
Richard has helpfully identified when things really began to go wrong but I think some date it to about 1936 when SPOs and PPOs were introduced.
Best manager / politician:
ReplyDelete"We are a law enforcement agency. It's what we are, it's what we do."
1. Okay guys and gals I don't agree with this but ...
2. We are enforcement, shape up or ship out.
3. I disagree with this, been here an awful long time ... early retirement, what a great result ... I strongly disagree with this.
4. Still some time to go ... I kind of see both sides ... let's make the best of a bad job and be professional.
5. If this works I can retire with integrity, if it doesn't, I kind of thought it wouldn't.
6. I am NAPO ... If fucking disagree, that's my job, hang on I am prevaricating now ... Whoa ... members are getting shitty ... I vehemently and always have disagreed.
7. My name is Christopher Grayling. 'The problem with you Christopher is you think you are always right.' To which, I, Chris said, 'You're wrong , the problem with me is I am always right, lol x.'
It's getting late and I am running out of ideas x
Stop taking the drugs before giving your comments 23.04. How embarrassing!
ReplyDelete