Frances Crook of the Howard League remarked the other day on twitter that the MoJ had received 600 responses to its sham probation consultation and only one was in support of the split. She suggested somewhat amusingly it had probably been written by Chris Grayling himself, but it's no laughing matter and as this from Clinks early last month makes clear, the charity and voluntary sector are determined to make sure they're not screwed second time around:-
WHY IS THE MOJ CONSULTING?
Major changes were made to probation services across England and Wales through the Transforming Rehabilitation programme in 2015. This large structural reform replaced Probation Trusts with a single National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for the management of ‘high-risk’ offenders; and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), responsible for the management of ‘low to medium risk’ offenders in 21 Contract Package Areas (CPAs).
The programme was controversial from inception, and it quickly became apparent it was not working as intended, as outlined in a recent report by the Justice Select Committee.
The MoJ also came under pressure for how Transforming Rehabilitation impacted on voluntary organisations. Clinks’ own research showed that the voluntary sector was under represented, under pressure and under resourced in the delivery of services under the reforms.
In response to such pressures, the MoJ decided to end current contracts in 2020 (two years earlier than planned) and begin a process, including a consultation, to redesign probation services. This consultation is part of that process.
You can read Clinks’ Interim Head of Policy Jess Mullen’s reaction and full summary of the key points of the consultation document here.
WHAT WE’RE DOING AND WHAT WE’RE HEARING
We have been busy supporting the MoJ’s market and stakeholder engagement activity, to ensure voluntary sector organisations can meaningfully input into the consultation process. We have hosted four events across England and Wales which were attended by over 150 people representing voluntary organisations working in the criminal justice system.
At these events, officials from the MoJ presented their proposals for the future of probation, and Clinks staff facilitated roundtable discussions on three areas: service design, commissioning and market stewardship. Here are some initial themes which came out of these discussions:
- Greater continuity of support needed. Many organisations identified the general lack of continuity from prison, to resettlement, through to ongoing probation support as a key issue in the current system. Greater communication and integration between probation and prisons is needed, as well as greater coordination between probation services and other statutory services.
- Large CPAs must not neglect local charities. In the consultation document, the MoJ proposes reducing the number of CPAs from 21 to 10. While this may encourage greater coordination between the NPS and CRCs, there is some concern that increasing the size of the geographical areas CRCs cover would make it even harder to ensure local, specialist charities are involved in delivery.
- The ISPA should be replaced. The Industry Standard Partnering Agreement (ISPA) is a standardised subcontract developed by the MoJ for use in probation. The ISPA has been too complex for smaller charities, and has given power to CRCs to negotiate favourable terms. It has also proved too rigid to respond to changes in volume of work. The ISPA should be scrapped and any future template contract must be flexible and proportionate to the services being delivered.
- Holding CRCs to account. Many voluntary organisations have been left frustrated in their relations with CRCs. Some want the MoJ to bring in either incentives or enforce requirements on CRCs to involve voluntary organisations meaningfully in the delivery of probation services.
It is clear through our engagement with voluntary organisations that there is some scepticism over the consultation process itself. In particular, people are concerned that the deadline the MoJ has given itself to consult on, redesign and launch a new probation service is at best ambitious. Given that the rushed implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation led to so many unforeseen consequences, such a concern is understandable.
Nonetheless, we think it is important that as many voluntary organisations as possible contribute to this consultation.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
The MoJ is listening - illustrated by the number of officials who have come to these events, engaged in discussion and answered often difficult questions. There is much yet to be decided and voluntary organisations still have an opportunity to shape probation services for the better.
The MoJ is also keen to hear from those with experience of navigating probation services themselves, and they have created resources to support organisations to consult with their service users in this process.
If you need any support in responding to the consultation, have any questions about the process, or wish to feed into our response, please get in touch.
--oo00oo--
Whilst we await the official MoJ response to the sham consultation, we can be fairly sure nobody is happy with the present situation, including Bob Neill of the Justice Committee:-
Whilst we await the official MoJ response to the sham consultation, we can be fairly sure nobody is happy with the present situation, including Bob Neill of the Justice Committee:-
Transforming Rehabilitation
Thank you for your letter of 27 July regarding the future of probation. As you will know, this is an issue of great interest to our Committee, given the many serious and large-scale problems which have arisen due to the major structural reforms to the probation system introduced in 2014 and 2015.
We were encouraged that you agree with us that there have been significant challenges, particularly with CRC contracts. We welcome a number of points in your consultation on the future of the probation system, including the introduction of clearer minimum standards and increasing opportunities for the involvement of voluntary sector organisations. We are particularly pleased that the consultation specifically aims to strengthen confidence in community sentences, since this is a key concern for our Committee.
However, we are disappointed that the consultation does not go far enough. We concluded earlier this year in our report Transforming Rehabilitation: Ninth report of session 2017-19 that we were unconvinced that the current model can ever deliver an effective or viable probation service. We recommended that the Ministry of Justice initiate a review into the long-term future and sustainability of delivering probation services under the models introduced by the TR reforms, including how performance under the TR system might compare to an alternative system for delivering probation. In our view the scope of the current consultation therefore represents a missed opportunity.
In particular, we are unconvinced that splitting offenders by risk was the right way to deliver the probation system. Therefore we are also particularly interested in your response to our call on the Government to ask HMI Probation to conduct a review of how offenders should be distributed between the NPS and CRCs, to investigate the impact of changing offender risk and how the NPS and CRCs manage this matter.
We note that you intend to procure new CRC contracts from 2020. Our committee will also want to pay special attention to the new contractual arrangements, given the past failures to tackle under-performance. In 2017-18, HMPPS wrote off an abandoned claim of nearly £6 million for recoveries from CRCs; this raises serious concerns about commercial capability within the department. It is vitally important that previous failures in the contracting model are not repeated.
We note that you intend to procure new CRC contracts from 2020. Our committee will also want to pay special attention to the new contractual arrangements, given the past failures to tackle under-performance. In 2017-18, HMPPS wrote off an abandoned claim of nearly £6 million for recoveries from CRCs; this raises serious concerns about commercial capability within the department. It is vitally important that previous failures in the contracting model are not repeated.
We note that you will not provide a formal response to the recommendations in our June 2018 report until October, and look forward to receiving that response and to continued engagement with you and your officials on this important matter.
Bob Neill MP
Chair Justice Committee
I can understand the third sector not wanting to be sidelined again, but when do charities become part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteBoth Barnardos and Citizens advice have recently been awarded lucrative contracts by government but they come at the cost of being silenced.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/esther-mcvey-theresa-may-universal-credit-charities-contract-clauses-reputation-a8580056.html%3famp#ampshare=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/esther-mcvey-theresa-may-universal-credit-charities-contract-clauses-reputation-a8580056.html
St Mungo's had a contract to help homeless people, but had to report anyone they helped that may have issues with their immigration status.
The Government dollar comes with cost, and I find it a bit disturbing when charities enter the same feeding grounds being exploited by the private sector.
'Getafix
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/27037
ReplyDeleteWidespread privatisation of public goods in many societies is systematically eliminating human rights protections and further marginalising those living in poverty, according to a new report.
DeletePhilip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, criticised the extent to which the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and even the UN itself have aggressively promoted widespread privatisation of basic services, without regard to the human rights implications or the consequences for the poor. He also criticised human rights groups for not responding strongly enough to the resulting challenges.
“Privatising the provision of criminal justice, social protection, prisons, education, basic healthcare and other essential public goods cannot be done at the expense of throwing rights protections out of the window”, Alston said.
“States can’t dispense with their human rights obligations by delegating core services and functions to private companies on terms that they know will effectively undermine those rights for some people.”
He noted that while “proponents present privatisation as a technical solution for managing resources and reducing fiscal deficits, it has actually become an ideology of governance that devalues public goods, public spaces, compassion and a range of other values that are essential for a decent society.
“While privatisation’s proponents insist that it saves money, enhances efficiency, and improves services, the real world evidence very often challenges or contradicts these claims”, Alston said.
Privatisation is premised on fundamentally different assumptions from those that underpin respect for human rights, such as dignity and equality, he said. It inevitably prioritises profit, and sidelines considerations such as equality and non-discrimination. Rights-holders are transformed into clients, and those who are poor, needy, or troubled are marginalised or excluded. Human rights criteria are absent from almost all privatisation agreements, which rarely include provisions for sustained monitoring of their impact on service provision and the poor.
“Existing human rights accountability mechanisms are clearly inadequate for dealing with the challenges of large-scale and widespread privatisation,” Alston said. “The human rights community can no longer ignore the consequences of privatisation and needs to radically reconsider its approach.”
Human rights actors should start by reclaiming the moral high ground and reasserting the central role of concepts such as equality, society, the public interest, and shared responsibilities, while challenging the assumption that privatisation should be the default approach. “The human rights community needs to develop new methods that systematically confront the broader implication of widespread privatisation and ensure that human rights and accountability are at the centre of privatisation efforts”, Alston said.
There appear to be no limits to what states have privatised, he said. Public institutions and services across the world have been taken over by private companies dedicated to profiting from key parts of criminal justice systems and prisons, dictating educational priorities and approaches, deciding who will receive health interventions and social protection, and choosing what infrastructure will be built, where, and for whom, often with harsh consequences for the most marginalised. “There is a real risk that the waves of privatisation experienced to date will soon be followed by a veritable tsunami”.
Privatisation of social protection often leads to a focus on economic efficiency concerns that aim to minimise time spent per client, close cases earlier, generate fees wherever possible, and cater to those better-off, pushing those with less resources and more complex problems to the margins.
Still no blog on the drama of the disappearing dame?
ReplyDeleteFor those who had either forgotten or not noticed, this from June 2018 (after she'd had her knuckles rapped over moonlighting down on Gove's farm):
Delete"Dame Glenys Stacey will be stepping down as HM Chief Inspector of Probation at the end of her current term. She is not seeking a re-appointment.
Dame Glenys was appointed as Chief Inspector in March 2016 on a three-year fixed term.
Dame Glenys said: “It is so important for those receiving youth offending and probation services and for the wider public, that providers and government are held to account for the quality of those services. HMI Probation plays a pivotal role.
“I am delighted that the inspectorate is now able to play its full part in driving improvements where needed to these important services, so that people can have complete faith in community sentencing, probation supervision and the careful work done by youth offending teams.
“We have introduced new ways of inspecting, underpinned by new quality standards. Organisations providing youth offending and probation services will now be rated by HMI Probation, just as schools and hospitals are rated by Ofsted and CQC.
“In many ways, the job I set out to do is done. HMI Probation has grown into a capable and respected organisation, with a strong senior management team, and people can be assured that the inspectorate will continue to do excellent work.”
More details on the appointment of a successor will follow."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-pay-budget-cuts-federation-legal-action-home-office-judicial-review-a8596551.html
ReplyDelete