I see the grandly-sounding Institute for Government doesn't hold back from offering advice regarding TR and TR2:-
Last Friday, one of largest private providers of probation services in Britain collapsed. Working Links, which ran probation services in three regions in England and Wales, went into administration after an inspection found its services in the South West to be ‘inadequate’. Yet the company’s problems are just another sign that the outsourcing of probation – launched by Chris Grayling, then Justice Secretary, in 2013 – has failed. The Ministry of Justice may have succeeded in cutting costs over the last five years (the data is not available to make a direct comparison), but it has failed to procure high quality services that properly rehabilitate offenders and keep the public safe. If the department cannot design contracts that achieve the latter, it should bring the services back in house.
The Outsourcing of probation has failed
Dame Glenys Stacey, the Chief Inspector of Probation, was damning in her report into the Dorset, Devon and Cornwall Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) run by Working Links – one of 21 regional companies that have taken on probation contracts for medium and low-risk offenders in England and Wales. Its services were ‘poor’, ‘insufficient’ and ‘inadequate’, she said, yet its leaders focussed on avoiding financial penalties from missing targets rather than improving performance.
Inspectors found staff avoiding giving offenders a ‘red’ risk rating because it meant they would need to be seen every week, which would use up extra resources. They also found evidence of staff marking an offender’s sentence plan as complete without having met them, in order to meet targets. “We have found professional ethics compromised and immutable lines crossed because of business imperatives” the Inspector said.
But this is not just about the failure of one company. Since 2015, private companies across the probation sector have been failing to meet targets, leading to unsafe services and increased re-offending. In December 2016, an inspection into the London Community Rehabilitation Centre found that ”unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers and extremely poor oversight” meant the services were so poor they were putting people at risk.
In February last year, the Chief Inspector concluded that overstretched companies across the sector were failing to monitor offenders properly. Their services were “in most cases wanting, often significantly so”. All eight of the private probation providers she has inspected since then have been ‘inadequate’ in at least one key area. Three were found to be inadequate in three out of four areas of case supervision, meaning staff were failing to properly support offenders.
Outcomes have also got worse. Out of 21 companies, 19 have failed to meet their targets for reducing the frequency of re-offending. While the number of reoffenders has decreased slightly, the total number of reoffences has increased compared with 2011, before the service was outsourced. Innovations have also not materialised – a new scheme to integrate freshly released prisoners turned out to mean giving them a leaflet.
The Ministry of Justice has failed to design contracts that deliver quality probation services
When the Ministry embarked on the outsourcing of probation services back in 2013, the Institute for Government warned that it would be ‘highly problematic’. We argued that there was no market of existing high quality suppliers and previous attempts had failed. This proved to be a major problem – made worse by the fact that the Ministry of Justice rushed through the changes.
We also argued that probation was a poor choice for outsourcing because re-offending outcomes are hard to measure and cannot be controlled by one provider alone. They depend on what happens in courts, policing and prisons. This has also proved to be correct: the MoJ has been unable to design a probation contract capable of accounting for this complex system. It currently pays provider by results – around four-fifths for meeting contractual requirements during the contract (such as completing sentence plans) and up to a fifth for reducing reoffending.
Given the increase in reoffending, most companies have made significant losses on the latter- even though much is beyond their control. Cuts in policing, which vary by region, have a significant effect on re-offending rates. And magistrates and judges have reduced community work orders and other sentences that are profitable to providers because they are sceptical about the quality of the companies’ work. Loss-making companies have in turn looked to cut corners elsewhere, as numerous inspections show. The department has been unable to codify what is required for a good service, and has instead created a market where providers focus on gaming the system to avoid financial penalties from missing targets.
If the Ministry of Justice can't fix probation contracts, it should bring services back in house
In July last year, David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, recognised that the quality of services had ‘fallen short of expectations’ and announced that he would terminate the contracts of Community Rehabilitation Companies in 2020, two years early. The department is consulting on what should replace them. It has indicated that it favours continuing to use private providers while redrawing the map to create ten probation regions and looking at new payment methods.
These changes still fail to address the problems we identified at the outset. The supplier market, while now battle-scarred, still looks seriously unhealthy. Of 21 companies, 14 are forecasting losses. Interserve could collapse at any moment, and it and MTCnovo, which together deliver half of probation services in England and Wales, have already said they could quit the probation sector altogether. Aurelius, the owner of Working Links, has already done so.
More than this, the Government has still failed to demonstrate that it can design and monitor probation contracts in a way that ensures private companies deliver services of adequate quality at a competitive price. Implementing a new system with a similar approach to contracting and the same struggling suppliers risks another damaging failure.
If the Government cannot design a probation contract that works, then rather than pressing ahead it should start bringing probation services back in house. While not directly comparable, the publicly-run National Probation Service still delivers services for high-risk offenders that inspections show are consistently much higher quality than outsourced services. In Wales, management for low and medium risk offenders will be transferred back in house in 2020 in order to better integrate prison and probation services. The Ministry of Justice could adopt this approach in England, while continuing to try to design probation contracts that work in smaller regional pilots where the stakes are lower.
Proper supervision and rehabilitation of offenders is vital to the safety of the public and to giving offenders a path out of the criminal justice system. The experiment with outsourcing probation services over the last five years has failed, with significant consequences for the quality and safety of services. The Ministry of Justice ignored warnings about the readiness of the market and its ability to contract services successfully. In deciding what comes next, it must not repeat the same mistakes.
Tom Sasse
19th Feb 2019
--oo00oo--
According to Wikipedia:-
The Institute for Government is a United Kingdom independent think tank which aims to improve government effectiveness through research and analysis. Based at 2 Carlton Gardens in central London and founded as a charity in 2008, it was initially funded with approximately £15 million by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, at the instigation of Lord Sainsbury.
Stated aims
The Institute for Government works to make government more effective. It engages with UK MPs, senior civil servants and others by:
- supporting the development and skills of senior public servants, politicians and political advisors.
- conducting and funding research on public administration and government.
- providing thought leadership on effective government through publications, seminars and events.
BBC News website:-
ReplyDeleteFacial recognition and eye scanning have been deployed at prisons to prevent drug smuggling.
The Ministry of Justice said the biometric scans for visitors were designed to help staff identify people bringing in contraband. At one prison, there were more "no shows" from visitors than usual after they learned the scans were being used. But prison campaigners said if families were deterred from visiting, then it would be "counter-productive".
In the trials, facial recognition technology was used at HMP Humber; iris scanners at HMP Lindholme; and identity document verification at HMP Hull. Ministers considered the pilot programme "successful" and are considering how to roll out the technology more widely in prisons across England and Wales.
Analysis
By BBC Home Affairs correspondent Danny Shaw
Last year prison staff across England and Wales seized more than 23,000 drug packages and mobile phones. Many methods were used to smuggle in the contraband, but intelligence work identified one trend in particular - prison visits.
Over a six-week period in December and January, cameras scanned the faces of 770 visitors at HMP Humber, to spot if they were using false identities or making repeat trips to see different prisoners. Some visitors turned back after finding out facial matching software was in use.
Justice Secretary David Gauke said: "New technology is vital in our fight against the gangs that seek to cause chaos in prisons, and this biometric equipment has the potential to significantly aid our efforts."
He said that along with a prison officer recruitment drive, the technology would help to "make prisons places of rehabilitation where offenders can turn their lives around".
It comes as the Prison Service struggles to stem the flow of the powerful synthetic drug Spice, blamed for outbreaks of violence, and illegal phones which are believed to be used to organise drug deliveries and intimidate witnesses.
The Ministry of Justice said that prison intelligence has identified a trend of visitors supplying banned items to inmates. But those responsible have proven difficult to track because they may be using false identity documents to gain access to the prison, it said. Some prisons use fingerprint technology, but many rely on physical ID documents such as driving licences.
Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform said: "If families and children are being deterred from visiting, that would be counterproductive. "We need to see more of the evidence behind this apparent deterrent effect."
The campaign group Big Brother Watch, which has launched a legal challenge to police plans to use automatic facial recognition in public places, said the prisons trial was a "total shock". It accused the government of taking an "experimental approach to human rights" by trying to win public acceptance for facial recognition cameras in controlled environments such as prisons, before it uses them as a general public surveillance tool.
Its been suggested more than once that some premiership football grounds, some high street stores & other large venues use facial recognition technology to monitor crowds, enforce bans, etc. Wouldn't surprise me if its a widely-used, under-reported technology.
DeleteI seem to remember that the MOJ team who designed and let the CRC contracts won a civil service award for their stout work. Wasn't there a picture of them all in dickie bows (all men) toasting thrmselves with a bottle of champers? What now? Will they do the honourable thing and hand it back?
ReplyDeletewww.civilserviceawards.com/2015-winners-0
Deleteyes they did. im guessing the have collected to money and moved on
https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-tees-47456541?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#aoh=15518600797816&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
ReplyDeleteOh dear - no latest news on their website since Wednesday December 20, 2017.
Deletehttps://dtvcrc.co.uk/news
Probation staff in Durham Tees Valley are failing to properly address domestic abuse and other care issues, inspectors say.
DeleteComplex cases are often given to staff at Durham Tees Valley Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) who have "insufficient experience", they added.
The Stockton-based CRC was rated as "requiring improvement" by HM Inspectorate of Probation. The CRC said it was "well on the way" to addressing the report's findings.
Having examined about 100 cases, the report found it was "concerning to note that sufficient planning to address domestic abuse issues was found in just over one-third of relevant cases".
Chief Inspector of Probation Dame Glenys Stacey said governance at the CRC, which supervises more than 3,700 people, was sound. But she said it had not made enough improvements since a previous inspection in 2016. She said: "When we last inspected this CRC, in 2016, we found its quality management arrangements wanting. Regrettably, that is still the case. We also found that assessment and planning need to improve. Not enough attention has been given to risk of harm and safeguarding issues, from day one and throughout the life of cases, and this has not been identified and addressed systematically. Poor record keeping and poor case review practices are commonplace. We also noted that some case managers have gaps in their knowledge and skills relating to risk of harm and safeguarding."
While Dame Glenys' report said the CRC had experienced and committed leaders who are focussed on delivering "high-quality" services, it added: "Some staff have insufficient knowledge of public protection and safeguarding practice."
Durham Tees Valley CRC Chief Executive Bronwen Elphick said: "We welcome the report and I am pleased to note we are the only CRC to date to have achieved a rating of "outstanding" for leadership and organisational capability. Our inspection has shown we have some work to do around our ability to manage the complex and sometimes competing demands evident in managing individuals within the community. We are already well on the way with our action plan to address the deficits highlighted."
If hitting targets is the process of reaching outcomes and achieving payment, and there's a suggestion that sometimes targets are being achieved 'tactically', then perhaps its time to change the focus on targets and what constitutes an outcome?
ReplyDeleteI'm continually frustrated and angered by the growing number of exoffenders I see leaving custody with all kinds of problems (including mental health) with nowhere to go, on the street with no access to any support networks or healthcare provision.
I understand that there are broader social policies at play, but I just don't accept that sending someone to prison, releasing them to sleep rough, and finding ways to get them through their supervision period without doing anything with them, can represent any kind of outcome that can be profited from.
Keeping data and paperwork up to date statistically pursuing an outcome isn't going to stop an addict that's dumped from custody onto the street with no support from reoffending.
Targets must have some real impact, not just a mechanism for achieving profit.
If things continue as they are, the UK is at risk of making criminal justice it's biggest industry.
And thank you once again Mr Grayling for what you've done for all the under 12mth prisoners being released, they're not very gratful, but some do think your image would make a great whackamole game!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6774259/Prisoners-given-TENTS-leave-jail.html
'Getafix
Yes but...
DeletePlease do not just blame Mr Grayling, he was the appointee as Secretary of State for the Government of the whole of the coalition Government of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, appointed by Mr Cameron as Prime Minister and sustained in office by the majority of members of Parliament - their dangerously daft policies for Transforming Rehabilitation, albeit reliant on legislation passed in 2007 when the Labour Party were in Government, were confirmed by the majority of members of Parliament in 2014 when they collectively reversed amendments to legislation, that would have significantly altered the introduction of the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme, and may have ultimately not approved it in its current form.
Mr Grayling, to my mind was mostly the public relations officer for the dangerously daft ideas, although they obviously also needed his approval.
I take your point Andrew, and I accept the complicity of the coalition in pushing the legislation through.
DeleteBut...
It was Graylings idea.
It was Grayling that sold the rethoric.
It was Grayling that overseen the tendering.
It was Grayling that oversaw its implementation.
It was Grayling that choose the contractors.
To my mind Grayling owns TR in the same way IDS owns universal credit, and Teresa May owns the hostile enviornment and Windrush.
Grayling knew he could get anything through the House as long as it shrunk the State and involved the private sector. He seized the opertuity to impose his own ideological beliefs even after all the risk predictions indicated danger and failure.
Grayling is the main offender, those that voted the legislation through stand guilty of assisting an offender.
'Getafix
All true but I doubt it was Mr Grayling's idea - the problem was that years earlier - I think Kenneth Clarke had accepted a departmental cut of 40% at the beginning of Mr Osborne's austerity programme.
DeleteI think much of that was to be delivered by cutting the number in prison which had doubled since when Mr Clarke was Home Secretary despite little changes in the overall amount of crime. I think at the time crime was said to be falling overall, but I may be wrong, anyway also the type of crime (as ever) was changing with the rapid uptake of internet use.
I think Mr Clarke also expected to end the dangerous and stupid IPP policy very quickly, but that was not to be and he did not finish the project.
I genuinely see the real problem as the Liberal Democrats, I suspect that the real driver behind their policy initiatives was Simon Hughes a barrister who had not practised much if at all for quite some time. Interestingly he did not initially join the ministerial pay roll.
I suspect Lib Dems, without understanding the integrated complexity of CJS but generally wanting to give prisoners better prospects on release wanted to bring in the Through the Gate idea - all very laudable, but they could not assume that the good (But manufactured results - with gold awards) for probation target keeping (we had been at that by then since 1992) represented good effective professional work with supervisees whereas it did not - that came about by mostly convicts wanting not to be convicts anymore and good application of social work skills - by a mostly professionally trained and/or experienced set of workers.
Mr Grayling wanted to achieve the Smaller State & for every public service to be run by the private companies, with the companies' shareholders getting direct access to what taxpayers contribute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_government
Mr Grayling put the whole situation - presumably mostly to the nincompoops at Policy Exchange (co-founded by Mr Gove) and they came up with the ideas - the original people behind it - at least some actually got jobs with Mr Cameron in Number Ten.
Lib Dems found a jolly fellow - who thought he understood CJS - see the Blog on Lord McNally and he was given the Bill to put through Parliament - look at his inability to answer anything in any detail.
The Conservative dominated House of Commons, Justice Committee basically supported the idea - it would lead to them forming a majority government next time – Mr Grayling with all his previous PR experience from before his days in parliament, when he worked for a time with the BBC was the man to front it. Like Gove after him - he found a way of going with the beliefs rather than experience - they really do believe in the small state - the Lib Dems were happy to be on the payroll believing they were helping the nation and taking the edge of what would have been the wilder policies of Conservatives.
AND there you have it - clearly few in parliament even understood the situation but did what they were told mostly - if only they had woken up - as at last they just about have with Brexit - they could have at least limited the damage - but they did not bother.
For examples see the Tweets I have had recently from an ex LibDem MP (name forgotten) who clearly does not have a clue about the CJS & yet he voted for TR!
It was Grayling who dismissed any reasoned critique of TR1 as "vested interests". It was Grayling who brought his dogma about privatisation with him from his time at the DWP. TR1 was fully his baby and we should not dilute his responsibility for the disaster.
DeleteSimon Hughes and the rest of the Lib Dems were just the Tories' useful idiots, window dressing for austerity, a few fat ministerial salaries and fancy cars in exchange for breaking the country, and a failed referendum that set back the cause of electoral reform for decades.
Yes - my comments are surmise but please do not rule out the role of parliament - if parliament can frustrate Brexit then so could it have frustrated the introduction and implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation.
DeleteUnfortunately probation is not significant enough in everyday life for the public, and therefore parliament, to take sufficient notice - until it goes wrong.
DeleteAnd don't forget the parliamentary arithmetic - parliament is only able to challenge Brexit (insofar as it is, which is not nearly far enough for my liking) because of Theresa May's vanity election in 2017. The coalition of 2010-2015 had a majority, with relatively little Tory infighting over Europe, and 50-odd Lib Dems who quickly came to understand that they had made their bed and would have to lie in it. There was little political will on the government benches to challenge government policy.
This is Grayling's mess, he should carry the can.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/03/dear-god-can-t-someone-do-something-distract-chris-grayling
DeleteThe probation cock-up is more serious because it affects real lives. At the height of austerity, Grayling was keen to offer up his department’s budget for cuts. Probation was duly slashed into two halves: low- and medium-risk offenders went to 21 community rehabilitation companies, while the high-risk cases stayed with the National Probation Service across the country.
DeleteHow did the new private companies staff up? By poaching state employees, depriving the high-risk side of the operation of years of expertise. Just as private hospitals cherry-pick straightforward operations, while leaving the complex cases to the NHS, the probation bifurcation should have presented a flattering picture of capitalist efficiency. How pleasing for a Tory minister to report. Except the companies involved quickly complained that the contracts weren’t profitable and they were struggling.
In July 2018, the current justice secretary David Gauke – the fifth incumbent in less than four years – announced that eight of the 21 companies would have their contracts ended two years early. Although Grayling’s system was about “payment by results”, the government would waive £115m of penalties for missed targets by these companies, because… well, because what? Truly, this is the joy of outsourcing: the private companies can keep their profits, but the taxpayer is always available to eat their losses.
These are not partisan points. An internal assessment by the Ministry of Justice in 2013, seen by the Observer, warned of “potential for service delivery failure increase” and “operational confusion”. This has come to pass. The overall number of people caught reoffending dropped by 2.5 per cent between 2011 and March 2017, but the number of offences per reoffender increased by 22 per cent. Because probation was extended to those jailed for less than a year, recalls to prison increased by 47 per cent.
In December 2017 the chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, said the reforms had created a “two-tier and fragmented” system, with nearly 40 per cent of offenders supervised by phone rather than in face-to-face meetings. Reduced staff numbers meant some junior officers were supervising 200 cases. In 2018, the justice select committee, led by Conservative MP Bob Neill, found that “hard working and dedicated staff are doing their best with a probation system that is currently a mess”.
Time and again in this government, we see the same pattern. A faith-based approach to policymaking (see also: Universal Credit) where critics are dismissed, evidence is rejected and the whole process is needlessly rushed. A naive belief that the private sector is always better (see also: Southern trains) even when there are examples of state companies, or public-private partnerships, working well (see: the East Coast Main Line and TfL). And, of course, the disastrous presence of Chris Grayling.
As a Theresa May loyalist and Brexiteer, he appears to be unsackable. All that remains is to distract him. Please. Can’t someone in the civil service send him out for a tin of tartan paint or a left-handed hammer?
Helen Lewis is associate editor of the New Statesman. She regularly appears on BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and the News Quiz, and is writing a history of feminism for Jonathan Cape.
The Institute for government report basically says to government with regards to outsourcing Probation that they had expressed that the project would fail citing various reasons for this. They then go onto to say, 5 years later, you've failed badly. Then they say to the government that their plan of supersizing outsourced contracts has no obvious redeeming features and is likely to fail again. I think that is where a lot of us are on this matter and increasingly perplexed that our weighty views are disregarded by our government.
ReplyDeleteTR2?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dominatrix-leading-man-chain-around-14094175
Could you class it as a RAR day Lol
ReplyDeleteGot a few mentions at PM Questions today. Keywords, Probation, Privatisation, Disaster. No meaningful reply or acknowledgement though. What is the point of PM questioms? Political theatre and knock about entertainment. Politics is too important to waste time on this midweek pantomime.
ReplyDeleteSubscribe to the FT to read: Financial Times "Chris Grayling is a symbol of what is going wrong in Britain"
ReplyDeleteThat's one helluva headline for a Govt Cabinet Minister. Anyone a subscriber?
Yes thanks, I've not read that though. FT allow (or used to) free access to those who register to a limited number of articles or subscribers can email a certain number of copies a month - I think Jim Brown has a contact, who sends them.
Delete'There is no better metaphor for the current state of Britain than the ferry company without any ferries. Seaborne Freight was awarded a £13.8m contract by the Department for Transport to bring in supplies from Ostend to Ramsgate in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Yet Seaborne did not actually own any ships and was relying on an Irish company to deliver the service. That backer has pulled out and the contract duly cancelled.
DeleteSuch levels of incompetence do not bode well, given the increasing chances of a no-deal exit from the EU in just 46 days. Until prime minister Theresa May sees her deal through parliament or opts to extend Article 50, this is the default outcome — with all the upheaval, economic shock and likely chaos that would ensue. The lack of due diligence on Seaborne raises questions about the UK government’s overall preparedness and whether food and medicine supplies will continue to flow.
The Department for Transport is obviously to blame for the Seaborne saga. Most of the ire is being targeted at the man at the top: Transport Secretary Chris Grayling. Nicknamed “failing Grayling” by opposition MPs, his tenure has included a litany of failures: the collapse of Virgin Trains East Coast; lengthy industrial disputes and disruption on Southern Rail; the disastrous launch of new railway timetables last spring. His previous record at the Ministry of Justice was equally controversial.
This is not an easy time to hold the transport brief. Britain’s railways are undergoing huge investment that is expected to produce sparkling new trains, more services and greater capacity over the next few years. Stations such as London Bridge and King’s Cross have been transformed. But such successes have been overshadowed by failures.
Whether or not Mr Grayling is at fault, someone has to take responsibility. His refusal to do so has turned him into a symbol of all that is wrong with this government. He is seen as an incompetent manager and a promoter of pipe dream projects that never come to fruition. His blithe reassurances that all will be right on the night ring hollow, and he appears to lack empathy and contrition.
His fellow Conservative MPs say they are increasingly baffled as to why Mr Grayling has not tendered his resignation, or been asked by Mrs May to step aside. It is almost impossible to now find an MP who will defend his actions.
Brexit is one reason why he remains in situ: he was one of the ministers behind the Vote Leave campaign in 2016 and the prime minister is aware she must keep Brexiters on side. There is also an element of personal loyalty — Mr Grayling supported Mrs May in her early political career as a local councillor.
Neither should be allowed to shield a secretary of state who is struggling to fulfil his brief. If businesses and the country generally are to have any faith in Brexit going smoothly, they must have confidence in transport.
That has to mean a new broom. Mr Grayling should do what is right for the government and the country and stand aside for someone better suited to the job. The decision to cancel the ferry contract should be a signal of further changes to come.'
sebastian.payne@ft.com