As the MoJ continues with its plan to issue new contracts to privateers, thanks go to the reader for recently giving a couple of examples of the contempt being shown for poor inspection reports by some CRCs.
From HM Probation Inspectorate Northumbria CRC Action Plan
Reply: Northumbria CRC does not agree with this recommendation. Over the contract length, it has undertaken retrospective re-design in all of its service user facing buildings. This has included the creation of private interview space in each office. It is satisfied that the current estate provides sufficient private interview space to allow all structured interventions and sensitive discussions to take place confidentially. This continues to be monitored directly with its staffing group and through service user feedback. As the current contracts will terminate in eighteen-months Northumbria CRC will not make any further modifications to its estate over and above regular building maintenance.
Any activity in relation to the creation of additional private interview space and on-going estates requirements will be undertaken through the established “Estates Transition Sub-group” as part of transition arrangements. Northumbria CRC welcomes on-going observation from its Contract Management Team across the estate to highlight any concerns or issues in line with the existing contract.
Or...Hampshire and Isle of Wight CRC Action Plan
1. [HIOW should} Reconsider the ratio of senior case managers to case managers holding cases in the context of findings around the quality of service.
Reply: Due to operational and affordability reasons the recommendation to reconsider the ratio is not agreed. The ratio of Senior Case Managers to Case Managers (SCM/CM)is based on the operating model and the resulting number of SCMs required to manage SCM cases as defined by iBAT (A case allocation tool) This is sufficient for the number of SCM cases within HIOW.
4. [HIOW should] Use quality management systems to drive the delivery of high-quality work as defined by HM Inspectorate standards.
Reply: This recommendation is Not Agreed as HIOW CRC believes that the Interserve Quality Management Framework (IQMF) already reflects defined HMIP Standards for the following reasons:
Or...Hampshire and Isle of Wight CRC Action Plan
1. [HIOW should} Reconsider the ratio of senior case managers to case managers holding cases in the context of findings around the quality of service.
Reply: Due to operational and affordability reasons the recommendation to reconsider the ratio is not agreed. The ratio of Senior Case Managers to Case Managers (SCM/CM)is based on the operating model and the resulting number of SCMs required to manage SCM cases as defined by iBAT (A case allocation tool) This is sufficient for the number of SCM cases within HIOW.
4. [HIOW should] Use quality management systems to drive the delivery of high-quality work as defined by HM Inspectorate standards.
Reply: This recommendation is Not Agreed as HIOW CRC believes that the Interserve Quality Management Framework (IQMF) already reflects defined HMIP Standards for the following reasons:
The IQAM model for Quality Assurance operating in HIOW CRC is designed to enable continuous improvement in practice. The model’s governance framework ensures ongoing review of HMI standards and operates via a change control process to update audit and monitoring requirements as appropriate. The model has MOJ endorsement for use as our QA approach and is supported via agreement through contract management channels. IQAM is also undergoing comparison with MOJ operational assurance activity to ensure consistency. Exercises to review IQAM outcomes with HMIP outcomes have been undertaken and reflect consistency. Activities within IQAM are undertaken to assess against all elements of Domain 1, 2 and 3 of the HMI standards and this is achieved via a mixed model of QA activities including: pre-inspection programmes, audit, interview, observation and policy/guidance reviews. Our reporting processes enable the outcomes of QA activity to be reported thematically and at individual through to CRC/Pan CRC level. IQAM by content and approach is very much focused and aligned to the HMI Standards.
Other examples are available here.
So this is where I don't understand the point of having an Inspectorate paid for by the public purse, only for those who have been inspected (also paid for by the public purse) to (1) deny what the inspectors have found, (2) insist they are *not* in-the wrong &/or (3) refuse to make any changes because the contract terminates in 18 months.
Fuck the 'service users' - fuck the inspectorate - we'll do what we want - we'll pocket what we want - who will stop us? The Perfect Storm feeds itself.
Other examples are available here.
So this is where I don't understand the point of having an Inspectorate paid for by the public purse, only for those who have been inspected (also paid for by the public purse) to (1) deny what the inspectors have found, (2) insist they are *not* in-the wrong &/or (3) refuse to make any changes because the contract terminates in 18 months.
Fuck the 'service users' - fuck the inspectorate - we'll do what we want - we'll pocket what we want - who will stop us? The Perfect Storm feeds itself.
Anon
I think the comments above show the author's lack of understanding about the inspection process.
ReplyDeleteAll prisons, NPS divisions and CRCs regularly disagree with the recommendations made by HMI Prisons/Probation, usually indicating that there is no means of realistically implementing them.
For example, if a recommendation was that more frequent reviews of OASys were required and a particular NPS division or CRC was so understaffed that they had no realistic prospect of adopting it, then they would say they disagree with the recommendation for the reason stated and it would then be over to the MOJ to sort out the staffing issue. Similarly, Northumbria CRC aren't going to modify their buildings with so little time left on their contract, hence why they disagreed with that one. If MOJ are unhappy with that then it'll be for them to stump up the cash to pay for the modifications but I doubt they will, again because the contract will end next year.
translation 1 - Never mind, dear, its clearly all a bit over your head. You see, what we do is so very clever that you naturally couldn't understand.
Deletetranslation 2 - you poor deluded creature. Do you really think the inspection process is so simple? That will explain why you are limited to such crude expression.
So I'm sure that the 'author' feels put in their place, not least when you opine:
"All prisons, NPS divisions and CRCs regularly disagree with the recommendations made by HMI Prisons/Probation..."
Well, oh worldly-wise & knowledgeable one, if you took the trouble to look at all of the recently available NPS & CRC Action Plans I think you'll find those highlighted above are the only examples of 'Not Agreed'. Which might be why the author highlighted them as being worth a look; and why Mr Brown felt they were worthy of being a blog subject.
But then I'm probably just another dumb-ass who doesn't understand, so forgive my impertinence.
The CRC owners took on the contracts, not to improve service delivery, but to extract as much profit as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe contracts are now very time limited and the whole focus will be only to wring out as many pennies as possible in the contract time remaining, there's no consequences for not implementing recommendations. Infact, there probably won't be another inspection before contract expiry date.
Robert Buckland gave a speach this week about safety and wellbeing in custody. Although he references that recall to prison can often increase the likelyhood of self-harm and suicide, and with recent reports highlighting a significant rise in self inflicted deaths by those on probation, he didn't mention probation once.
Some might find that contemptuous.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/iap-keeping-safe-conference-robert-buckland-speech
'Getafix
Have we slipped into a void in recent weeks?
ReplyDeleteIt feels like we are waiting for something but there is a lack of information.
We should be in the midst of pay negotiations but they have been put off because of the Re-integration, there is a staffing review underway with announcements soon, nothing, absolutely nothing from NAPO or our supposed leaders, and there is talk of the MoJ/HMPPS moving ministries, but no hard facts even rumour to analyse and dissect.
I fear we are sleepwalking into something and it may not be to our benefit!
they have always shown contempt. You should see the caseloads and the workload management tool - can be on 56 cases and only be 90% and if one case terminates you are down to 81% and get 11 cases off a colleague on long term sick but WLMT only goes up to 98%, it's all a con it really is.
ReplyDelete