"I'd dearly love to be enthusiastic about this speculation/news, but even if it is true that ALL probation service provision returns to the public sector there are several significant problems that won't be easily resolved, i.e. the in situ mis-management teams who have been blissfully missing the point under whatever flag is flying, enriching &/or ennobling themselves while treating staff like shit.
Simply running another flag up the same pole will not change that, nor will it see the doors being flung open for a new manifesto. The piss-poor managerialist chumocracy needs to be removed en masse. They had their chance. They failed staff, service users and the public. They Failed.
The service provision must now be re-positioned with politically independent oversight. An interim hiatus must follow whereby existing provisions run until Day X, while a new management structure is designed & built; one which will be ready to assume control within a year; one which has fresh eyes, fresh blood & refreshing qualities of professionalism, humanity, compassion & style.
The manifesto outlined above would serve as a positive framework upon which to start building a new ethically, psychologically & professionally sound structure."
*******
"the in situ mis-management teams who have been blissfully missing the point under whatever flag is flying"
Never forget many of these 'leaders' were in receipt of full EVR payments before shifting to equally lucrative posts in NPS or CRCs and many have been in receipt of generous salaries for the last five years. Their expectation is that they will be the 'new leaders' in the new structure; we've already had the recent round of appointments of the usual chums to the 12 regional posts, with accompanying supporting roles.
NOTHING will change until a deep clean has been carried out.
The organisational changes to date, the shifts from probation areas to trusts to NPS & CRCs are proof of stasis - nothing of significance has changed because the pre-existing culture was embedded in the process of succession for the key roles.
The only truly meaningful shift occurred when the politicians first got their grubby mitts on the probation service & installed their own operators to take the reins. In Nottinghamshire the long-serving Colin Edwards was ousted without the traditional gong pinned to his chest and he was replaced by a 'suit form the centre', David Hancock. But there was an unexpected twist...
Anonymous 25 March 2019 at 11:23:
"Hancock was an intriguing Chief; a hybrid of sharp suited civil servant & man-with-a-heart. He was the hatchet man brought in by "the centre" after Colin Edwards' spirited fight to keep probation independent failed, but it seems Hancock was so impressed with what Edwards had achieved he began to adopt a similar approach."
It was posted in response to this Telegraph story from 2004:
"The head of a probation service that was blamed for failing properly to monitor a drug addict who killed a policeman while out of prison on licence said yesterday that he took full responsibility for its errors. But David Hancock, the chief officer of Nottinghamshire Probation Area, said he would not be disciplining any of the staff involved and would not be resigning.
Mr Hancock said he accepted all the criticisms in the report. He was aware that his staff were overworked. He said she should not face any action because she was overworked and that was the management's fault. Mr Hancock also blamed a raft of Home Office initiatives imposed on his service, which had confused staff.
We should be going back to our roots:
"The Probation and After-Care Service is not a department of the local authority; nor is it administered by the central government. Probation officers are employed by local committees of magistrates within areas corresponding to those of local government, and these committees are funded both from from central and local government sources. This arrangement gives probation officers independence from the administrative arm of government, enabling the courts to receive impartial information and advice." [Jarvis]"
--oo00oo--
There's a widely held and oft-expressed view that probation under the old Trusts and before that Services, wasn't very good, but of course as the above reminds us, along with references to 'Jarvis', we had something rather special, independence. It's now astonishing to reflect that when I started out as a PO, I could advocate freely on behalf of clients, communicate with MP's; dispense cash; write references; sign Passport Applications; basically engage in any activity or action that felt appropriate in furtherance of 'Advising, Assisting or Befriending' that person. I defy suggestion that it wasn't as close to halcyon as I'm ever likely to experience.
--oo00oo--
I notice that the Probation Institute has spoken:-
Rt Hon Lucy Frazer QC MP
Minister of State for Prisons and Probation
Dear Lucy Frazer
The Directors of the Probation Institute have asked me to write to you about the future of the Probation Service at this time. We are the professional body for probation services and wider rehabilitation organisations. We work closely with the National Probation Service enabling and disseminating professional development and research and providing an important voice for practitioners on professional matters. We are committed to the strengthening and recognition of professional development for all practitioners and managers engaged in probation work.
We recently met with Jim Barton to keep up to date on developments concerning Probation Reform. We had welcomed the decision to re-integrate case management within the National Probation Service. However, we have written on previous occasions to the Justice Secretary Robert Buckland and to Amy Rees Director General, expressing our serious concern at the decision to continue major outsourcing of core probation work (Interventions and Unpaid Work). We recognise that probation works best when it works in partnership with a range of others within and beyond the criminal justice system, in particular voluntary and community organisations. We regard the decision to continue major outsourcing as seriously flawed and presenting very significant risks in relation to:
- consistent and objective measures to reduce reoffending and risk of harm
- efforts to regain the confidence of both sentencers and the public,
- rebuilding the essential professional morale of probation staff which will be impacted by the disaggregation of responsibility,
- the challenges of geographically disparate services and
- the complexity of the arrangements necessary to contact out these critical areas of probation work.
We understand that the arrangements for selecting Probation Delivery Partners have been put on hold due to the impact of Covid19. We would urge you to take this opportunity to reconsider the way forward. We would urge you to make a bold, professionally informed decision to reintegrate all the core functions of probation work within the National Probation Service and to explore models which can respond to communities. I am sure that you are aware of the many very committed organisations in the justice sector who are firmly of the same opinion about this important issue. Our members and our Fellows all sincerely hope that you will seize this opportunity to enable to Probation Service to move forward as one integrated, professional, and hugely dedicated organisation.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Schofield
Acting Chief Executive
Probation Institute
I'm genuinely interested to know on what grounds 'management' have failed'? After all, the independent HMIP regularly give praise to the leadership of NPS and CRCs which suggests they think the system, rather than the individuals, are at fault.
ReplyDeleteAnd if they were removed en masse, from what pool would their replacements be drawn from? Is the consensus that they should be non-Probation people? That would be the only realistic way to avoid the 'usual chums' being appointed.
Management in our area have failed because they rushed to adopt a business model that nobody wanted. they repeated the mantra’s of the emperors new clothing by spouting rubbish on Twitter that everything was marvellous and everybody was tripping over the rainbow despite rock bottom morale, poor pay and conditions and bullying.
ReplyDeleteThey failed by pushing the language of business when the Staff believed we were a service.
They failed by awarding themselves large pay increases whilst distancing themselves from the shop floor and ruling by diktat. They failed by forgetting their roots, many of them were former social workers who wanted to be CEOs.
They failed by pushing targets, refusing to challenge control and command and most of all they failed because they couldn’t see they were failing and believed their own guff.
As to who should replace them, it should be people who are interested in staff and service ideals, not those wanting to line their pockets. People who will give the organisation a voice. A team who say we know what we are doing and where we are going, not simply following orders from above.
Spot on.
DeleteThe issue with the re-amalgamation of management structures is not about those long-standing senior managers who were reborn from their previous Trust ACO jobs into CRC posts (still clutching their EVR payments), since most were quickly purged. In London, the CRC (MTCNovo) soon realised that it didn't have to pay the salaries of experienced managers, so almost all were unceremoniously laid off. They were replaced by startlingly inexperienced, recently-qualified, opportunists with corporate mindsets who realised they could be in line to fill the gaps if they 'agreed' their way up the greasy pole. Several, in fact, didn't need to bother with qualifying as a PO, moving straight from graduation to the higher echelons of a pretty complex service where day-to-day misjudgements can literally cost lives.
ReplyDeleteWhat is now left in London, is a large number of 'Area Heads' who have little experience of Probation, or indeed of people, but who are very willing to respond to the demands of the market. This, for me, is why the CRC (certainly in London) has failed so spectacularly.
The problem now will be what to do with all these people. Can they now be merged into the public sector to reek their clumsy havoc? Or can they just be moved on to the Dept of Transport or Trade to lucrative but less risky desk jobs?
I quite enjoyed that I initially misread "Area Heads" as "Air Heads".
DeleteI am confused (no surprises there).
ReplyDeleteNAPO: "The Trade Union, Professional Association and campaigning organisation for Probation and Family Court staff."
PI: "We are the professional body for probation services and wider rehabilitation organisations. We work closely with the National Probation Service enabling and disseminating professional development and research and providing an important voice for practitioners on professional matters."
So who *is* Spartacus?
Just spin the pa is full of ex Napo and some heavy end shit ex chief officers. They abused staff and failed are not well recognised for anything. Like Napo claim the unrealistic and hang around for funding for nothing.
DeleteI read 'ruling by diktat' as 'ruling by dick heads'.
ReplyDelete