Entitled 'A Practitioner Vision for the future of Probation' and thankfully written by a seasoned practitioner, the paper makes a compelling and well-argued case for reunification of a national service, but with localised control outwith the dead hand of civil service command and control. There is broad agreement on this approach by many informed parties and it will be interesting to see the degree to which the present administration are prepared to go in fulfilling these eminently sensible aspirations.
In view of the fact we discussed the paper back in May 2019, I don't intend to republish it here, however I think it's worth revisiting a couple of the comments made at the time:-
I am new to the profession, with a few years under my belt completed the new PQIP. I can categorically tell you I am absolutely sick to the teeth of my job now. I am tired of being managed by SPOs who haven't held a case load for however many years prior their promotion, who make unreasonable demands, love pointless bureaucracy, and facilitate an uncaring generic 'management' style. All I want is to be told I'm doing well. Feel supported. Ask me about my mental health. Ask me about my family. Help me do well.
I am actively looking to leave after spending years trying to become a PO. This is not the job I signed up for. I'm ill, I worry about my targets every single evening...I have lost so much confidence and passion for the role. But if I'm feeling 'low' I can get telephone counselling through that useless PAM assist'. I'm done with the NPS.
*****
A sad but unsurprising, and very familiar, story. Unfortunately no-one with any authority - or 'skin in the game' as the useless, pretentious wankers prefer to say - is remotely interested. They're enjoying good money & lots of luvverly power. No doubt you will be sadly missed by those you work with & alongside. But nowt will change substantially for a while yet, so look after yourself & choose something that will nurture & reward you.
*******
If Irvine Welsh doesn't mind me tampering:
Choose NPS or CRC. Choose being the boss, pocketing the dosh and playing power games. Choose bullying others and meeting targets. Choose taking whichever side you think is winning today, tomorrow, whenever. Choose denying you ever got it wrong. And choose watching history repeat itself...
... or ...
Choose the ones you love.
Choose your future.
Choose Life.
*****
The writer makes good professional sense and visions something that has been lost. I think Grayling and co smashed you up bad, this will take some fixing.
*****
A unified, nationalised service with autonomy to develop localised relationships with other agencies is a no brainer to my mind. Although I feel care is needed so as not to see control of a more localised model being ceeded to regional PCCs. But my own very personal view is that the splits in probation run far deeper then public/private or CRC/NPS.
*******
If Irvine Welsh doesn't mind me tampering:
Choose NPS or CRC. Choose being the boss, pocketing the dosh and playing power games. Choose bullying others and meeting targets. Choose taking whichever side you think is winning today, tomorrow, whenever. Choose denying you ever got it wrong. And choose watching history repeat itself...
... or ...
Choose the ones you love.
Choose your future.
Choose Life.
*****
The writer makes good professional sense and visions something that has been lost. I think Grayling and co smashed you up bad, this will take some fixing.
*****
A unified, nationalised service with autonomy to develop localised relationships with other agencies is a no brainer to my mind. Although I feel care is needed so as not to see control of a more localised model being ceeded to regional PCCs. But my own very personal view is that the splits in probation run far deeper then public/private or CRC/NPS.
Befriend assist and advise or supervise and enforce? Qualifications? PSO/PO? Management styles? Dinosaur or Freshface. I think reunification is essential, but I think once that's achieved many more divisions will be exposed, and the real damage that TR, political meddling and prison centric control has caused will become much more apparent.
--oo00oo--
A lot happened in May 2019 involving probation, what with HMI Dame Glenys putting her boot in and eventually David Gauke the Justice Secretary biting the bullet and effectively announcing TR's death sentence. He was generally well-respected, but we all know his fate later that year as he became collateral damage during the Brexit shenanigans. As it happens, I notice he's very recently decided to seek revenge via this scathing piece published on the Conservative Home website:-
The Prime Minister will regret not requiring Cummings’ resignation
David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
These are points I would rather not make. Throughout this crisis, I have been of the view that the Government has a tremendously difficult job to do, that all options are unpalatable, that the public understands all of this and that it is in the national interest that we get behind the Government in as constructive a manner as possible.It would be hard to argue that it has been a good couple of weeks for the Government. The Prime Minister promised a ‘world-beating’ track and trace system by 1 June, but we are some weeks from it being fully operational. The Chair of the Statistics Authority has brought into question the accuracy and integrity of the Government’s test numbers. The Home Secretary has announced a quarantining policy that looks irrelevant to reducing the spread of the virus but disastrous to attempts to restore the economy. And the Leader of the House of Commons has replaced a well-functioning online voting system with something that requires MPs to queue for half an hour and, until amended, disenfranchised large numbers of MPs.
For my own part, on these pages and elsewhere I have argued that the Government has broadly got many of the decisions right – or, at least, where they have been in error these were mistakes that could easily be made by any government.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should have locked down earlier. At the time, Rory Stewart made the case for an earlier lockdown but I didn’t. Rishi Sunak moved quickly and impressively to establish support for businesses and employees.
As for the moves to ease the lockdown, I think the Government has been right to resist calls to abandon it rapidly, but that maintaining the toughest restrictions was unsustainable. When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take a cautious step-by-step approach to returning to some kind of normality, I was supportive.
Above all, I looked at the responsibility placed on the shoulders of former colleagues and recognised that it is much easier to comment from the side lines than it is to be the person making life-or-death decisions. My view was that Ministers should be scrutinised, but that the public understood how difficult this was.
Much of that still holds true. But something significant has happened in the past fortnight in how the Government is viewed and it is going to make it much harder in future. The benefit of the doubt has been lost and it has been lost because of Dominic Cummings.
I am conscious that, when it comes to Cummings, I can be easily dismissed as a bitter Remainer whose political career was brought to an end by his single-minded pursuit of Brexit. But it is also true that, on these pages, I have frequently praised his strategic ruthlessness, defended his attendance at SAGE meetings and, if the decision to go to Durham was made by stressed and anxious parents concerned about the well-being of their four year old son, I would not want to be too condemnatory of a well-meaning error made under pressure.
Nonetheless, the Cummings Northern Tour, and the reaction to the story, revealed (or perhaps I should say, reminded us) of five attributes of the Government that even those of us sympathetic to the Government’s plight find unattractive.
First, the arrogance. The immediate response from Cummings was to dismiss the story as an irrelevance – “it’s not about what you guys think” – when it was clear that the guidelines had been broken and an apology was in order.
Second, the lack of honesty and transparency. The Cummings story changed almost by the hour and the explanation for the trip to Barnard Castle stretches credulity. By the way, the emergence that Cummings’ 2019 blog was amended in April to include a specific reference to the threat of a coronavirus pandemic (which gave the impression that he was extraordinarily prescient) deserves much more attention.
Third, the emasculation of the Cabinet. At a time when the Government badly needs a large number of big beasts to go out and make its case for it, forcing Cabinet ministers to tweet in support of an indefensible position undermines them. Given the nature of this controversy, the Attorney-General should certainly have neither been asked nor should she have consented to do this.
Fourth, the dependence of the Prime Minister on a single adviser. It was always likely to be the case that Boris Johnson would take a slightly non-executive approach to being Prime Minister, and ill-health and family responsibilities have probably exacerbated that tendency.
But, as the revealing Danny Kruger view to his fellow members of the 2019 Conservative intake argues “BJ and DC … together is the only way to GBD, level up the regions, and fix Whitehall – the only things which will win us the next General Election”. The ‘only way’? And, as with the Vote Leave organisation, the Government is full of people whose loyalty is primarily to Mr Cummings – making him apparently unsackable.
Fifth, everything is seen through the prism of Brexit. Again, the Kruger stance makes it clear that the big prize is ‘GBD’ – Getting Brexit Done. That is what really matters above all.
I should acknowledge that every single one of those attributes was apparent at the time of the last general election when the British people gave Boris Johnson an 80-seat majority. It was a Government that had attempted to shut down Parliament, failed to justify its reasons and never apologised. It promised an ‘oven-ready deal’ in order to ‘get Brexit done’, which doesn’t entirely convey the situation in which we currently find ourselves. The Cabinet was selected primarily on the basis of loyalty to the Prime Minister. And Cummings was very obviously the leading strategic mind within the Government and his overriding objective was to leave the European Union at all costs. And it won.
The difficulty is that it is not a Government well-suited to the unexpected challenge it faces. A Government that shows humility and honesty will retain the benefit of the doubt, but that runs counter to a ‘never apologise, never explain’ ethos. The country expects the Prime Minister to be in charge and for Cabinet ministers to be competent and substantial figures. A system that depends upon immense power in the hands of one person (especially an unaccountable figure) is unsustainable when faced with a challenge of this scale. And for most people, Brexit (one way or another) is not the priority at the moment – tackling the disease is.
The national mood in recent months has been one of a coming together. The scars of the Brexit debate were beginning to heal as most of the country wanted the Government to succeed. Honest mistakes were forgiven; genuine successes celebrated. But the decision to keep Cummings in place has meant that normal politics has resumed much earlier than would otherwise be the case. Given the difficult months ahead, the Prime Minister may regret that.
These are points I would rather not make. Throughout this crisis, I have been of the view that the Government has a tremendously difficult job to do, that all options are unpalatable, that the public understands all of this and that it is in the national interest that we get behind the Government in as constructive a manner as possible.It would be hard to argue that it has been a good couple of weeks for the Government. The Prime Minister promised a ‘world-beating’ track and trace system by 1 June, but we are some weeks from it being fully operational. The Chair of the Statistics Authority has brought into question the accuracy and integrity of the Government’s test numbers. The Home Secretary has announced a quarantining policy that looks irrelevant to reducing the spread of the virus but disastrous to attempts to restore the economy. And the Leader of the House of Commons has replaced a well-functioning online voting system with something that requires MPs to queue for half an hour and, until amended, disenfranchised large numbers of MPs.
For my own part, on these pages and elsewhere I have argued that the Government has broadly got many of the decisions right – or, at least, where they have been in error these were mistakes that could easily be made by any government.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should have locked down earlier. At the time, Rory Stewart made the case for an earlier lockdown but I didn’t. Rishi Sunak moved quickly and impressively to establish support for businesses and employees.
As for the moves to ease the lockdown, I think the Government has been right to resist calls to abandon it rapidly, but that maintaining the toughest restrictions was unsustainable. When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take a cautious step-by-step approach to returning to some kind of normality, I was supportive.
Above all, I looked at the responsibility placed on the shoulders of former colleagues and recognised that it is much easier to comment from the side lines than it is to be the person making life-or-death decisions. My view was that Ministers should be scrutinised, but that the public understood how difficult this was.
Much of that still holds true. But something significant has happened in the past fortnight in how the Government is viewed and it is going to make it much harder in future. The benefit of the doubt has been lost and it has been lost because of Dominic Cummings.
I am conscious that, when it comes to Cummings, I can be easily dismissed as a bitter Remainer whose political career was brought to an end by his single-minded pursuit of Brexit. But it is also true that, on these pages, I have frequently praised his strategic ruthlessness, defended his attendance at SAGE meetings and, if the decision to go to Durham was made by stressed and anxious parents concerned about the well-being of their four year old son, I would not want to be too condemnatory of a well-meaning error made under pressure.
Nonetheless, the Cummings Northern Tour, and the reaction to the story, revealed (or perhaps I should say, reminded us) of five attributes of the Government that even those of us sympathetic to the Government’s plight find unattractive.
First, the arrogance. The immediate response from Cummings was to dismiss the story as an irrelevance – “it’s not about what you guys think” – when it was clear that the guidelines had been broken and an apology was in order.
Second, the lack of honesty and transparency. The Cummings story changed almost by the hour and the explanation for the trip to Barnard Castle stretches credulity. By the way, the emergence that Cummings’ 2019 blog was amended in April to include a specific reference to the threat of a coronavirus pandemic (which gave the impression that he was extraordinarily prescient) deserves much more attention.
Third, the emasculation of the Cabinet. At a time when the Government badly needs a large number of big beasts to go out and make its case for it, forcing Cabinet ministers to tweet in support of an indefensible position undermines them. Given the nature of this controversy, the Attorney-General should certainly have neither been asked nor should she have consented to do this.
Fourth, the dependence of the Prime Minister on a single adviser. It was always likely to be the case that Boris Johnson would take a slightly non-executive approach to being Prime Minister, and ill-health and family responsibilities have probably exacerbated that tendency.
But, as the revealing Danny Kruger view to his fellow members of the 2019 Conservative intake argues “BJ and DC … together is the only way to GBD, level up the regions, and fix Whitehall – the only things which will win us the next General Election”. The ‘only way’? And, as with the Vote Leave organisation, the Government is full of people whose loyalty is primarily to Mr Cummings – making him apparently unsackable.
Fifth, everything is seen through the prism of Brexit. Again, the Kruger stance makes it clear that the big prize is ‘GBD’ – Getting Brexit Done. That is what really matters above all.
I should acknowledge that every single one of those attributes was apparent at the time of the last general election when the British people gave Boris Johnson an 80-seat majority. It was a Government that had attempted to shut down Parliament, failed to justify its reasons and never apologised. It promised an ‘oven-ready deal’ in order to ‘get Brexit done’, which doesn’t entirely convey the situation in which we currently find ourselves. The Cabinet was selected primarily on the basis of loyalty to the Prime Minister. And Cummings was very obviously the leading strategic mind within the Government and his overriding objective was to leave the European Union at all costs. And it won.
The difficulty is that it is not a Government well-suited to the unexpected challenge it faces. A Government that shows humility and honesty will retain the benefit of the doubt, but that runs counter to a ‘never apologise, never explain’ ethos. The country expects the Prime Minister to be in charge and for Cabinet ministers to be competent and substantial figures. A system that depends upon immense power in the hands of one person (especially an unaccountable figure) is unsustainable when faced with a challenge of this scale. And for most people, Brexit (one way or another) is not the priority at the moment – tackling the disease is.
The national mood in recent months has been one of a coming together. The scars of the Brexit debate were beginning to heal as most of the country wanted the Government to succeed. Honest mistakes were forgiven; genuine successes celebrated. But the decision to keep Cummings in place has meant that normal politics has resumed much earlier than would otherwise be the case. Given the difficult months ahead, the Prime Minister may regret that.
Right on cue, here's the latest not very good report on a CRC, but one with 'strong' leadership:-
ReplyDeleteThis is the ninth inspection in the second round of our inspections of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Our last inspection of Merseyside CRC took place in June 2018. At that time, we rated it as ‘Requires improvement’. Although considerable work has taken place since then to try to improve the overall effectiveness of services, it is disappointing that the rating this time remains unchanged.
Leadership across the CRC is strong and there is a clear commitment from senior managers to improve the work it undertakes with service users and to build on the positive relationships with partner agencies in the region. The implementation, since the last inspection, of a new operating model has been managed well and the introduction of specialist teams affords the opportunity to offer a more focused and personalised service to service users. The resourcing model is nevertheless extremely tight, and while staff turnover is encouragingly low, sickness levels are high, placing even more pressure on resources.
An improved induction programme since the last inspection and a strong focus on training have been supported by initiatives to support staff and make management oversight more effective. The reality, however, is that these have not yet had the desired effect across all areas of service delivery. The quality of case management has declined overall since the last inspection, particularly in relation to safety. The allocation process remains inconsistent and too often assessments do not sufficiently identify risk factors or draw sufficiently on available information to make informed judgements. Ironically, despite good strategic links with partner agencies, operational engagement is too often insufficient.
In Prescot, much of the case management we saw was good, particularly in relation to work to keep others safe. While this is encouraging and demonstrates that the work undertaken to improve performance can be effective, there should be no complacency, since this only goes to emphasise the insufficiencies elsewhere. Nevertheless, the CRC would do well to explore these differences further and try to build on the learning in Prescot.
Although not formally assessed at our last inspection, the provision of unpaid work has improved since we last inspected Merseyside. Further work to improve assessments and increase access to education, training and employment would help it improve further. Improvements in Through the Gate work have been impressive. Increased staffing levels have helped since the enhanced specification came into effect in April 2019, and a wide range of initiatives are now in place.
While the CRC and senior management team will be disappointed by this report and the fact that we have not found the improvements they hoped for, much of the focus of the last 18 months has been the right one. The emphasis now must be on ensuring the impact is reflected in casework and that those with oversight responsibility to ensure this happens have the right skills and knowledge.
Justin Russell
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
One would imagine that for a role as significant as Probation HM Ch.Inspector the newly appointed person would have been given a new laptop & an updated version of Windows Office, rather than having to use Dame Thingy's old one with all her cut-&-pastes still in the memory.
DeleteOh very good! :)
DeleteThat is very good from Gauke
ReplyDeleteWhat a pity he chose to uphold the Conservative Government when he had real power and a bold junior partner in Rory Stewart.
Then he chose not to publish a full analysis of the shambles of the Orwellian named probation policy of Transforming Rehabilitation and the national shame of the Imprisonment for Public Protection scheme alongside centralised mismanagement of the criminal justice sytstem that has included failed outsourcings of foreign language interpretation and forensic science laboratories.
Now we risk the 'no deal' Brexit and more small stateism as public service after public service in the UK fails to meet the nation's needs amidst the unavoiadable Climate Change, in the face of a viral pandemic and now seemingly inevitable decline in bio-diversity.
Many examples of similar, Andrew. I can think of three favourite examples - Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine & Alastair Campbell. All holding or supporting deeply unpleasant politics when career-hungry MPs, but once they had left the gladiatorial arena they have proven themselves to be very different & very compassionate human beings. I have no idea how they reconcile their very public, noxious former selves with who they are now.
DeleteAnother recent example was Young Rory, the Tiny Tory, ousted by Boris Cummings over Brexit:
Guardian, 2010 - In an interview with the Scottish Sun, Stewart said: "Some areas around here are pretty primitive, people holding up their trousers with bits of twine and that sort of thing. I was in one village where a local kid was run over by a tractor. They took him to Carlisle but they couldn't be bothered to wait at the hospital. So they put him in a darkened room for two weeks then said he was fine. But I'm not so sure he was."
He did a fairly sharpish about-turn though: "The Eton-educated ex-soldier and former Foreign Office official, who represents Penrith and the Borders, has admitted he was "extremely foolish"..."
As Gauke says, "With the benefit of hindsight, we should have locked down earlier. At the time, Rory Stewart made the case for an earlier lockdown"
Hands up... Campbell was not, of course an MP. He was, like Cummings, the de facto Prime Minister.
DeleteAll will be OK. Sodexo will make it so.
Deletehttps://group.bureauveritas.com/newsroom/sodexo-partners-bureau-veritas-introduce-hygiene-verification-label-designed-support
Sodexo, world leader in Quality of Life Services, and Bureau Veritas, world leader in testing, inspection and certification, have joined forces to introduce a hygiene verification label for Sodexo procedures and services. This label forms part of Sodexo’s global endeavors to help clients and consumers resume work in complete confidence. This label gives further quality assurance to clients and consumers that all necessary health steps have been taken when organizations reopen post-lockdown. It bolsters the ‘rise with Sodexo’ programs and the Sodexo Medical Advisory Council measures.
DeleteIt covers both facilities management on-site services (i.e. reception, cleaning, disinfection, security and maintenance services), and catering services (adapted to take in to account social distancing and contactless services). The label will be immediately introduced in France, UK, USA and Canada and then gradually rolled out in other countries.
Sylvia Metayer, Sodexo Chief Growth Officer, said: “Reestablishing trust among people so they have total peace of mind when resuming on-site work is absolutely paramount. Teaming up with Bureau Veritas, an independent auditor of workplace best practices and measures, is further proof of our commitment to support our clients, consumers and people so they can go back to work in complete confidence”.
Didier Michaud-Daniel, CEO of Bureau Veritas, said: "We are proud to be Sodexo's partner in this international labeling project. The health and safety of clients, consumers and employees have always been core concerns of our two companies and have now become an absolute priority in this new normal. Through this collaboration, Bureau Veritas reaffirms its commitment to shaping a world of trust, which is an essential foundation for a sustainable society model”.
Bollox how long before their standards drop to the bottom as usual pennies dependant.
Delete??? IN VINO VERITAS ???
DeleteAnd given the track record of Sodexo it will be very fine vino indeed for their highly successful leaders.
While we wait for the proclamation on probation, may I leave this 2003 pen portrait of someone who knows fine wines, the defenestrated MP Nicholas Soames (whose brother runs Serco). He is the epitomy of someone who lives in a different universe:
Deletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-229926/The-man-doesn-t-damm.html
"We meet at the Ritz, where everyone knows him, and his secretary explains in advance that he likes to sit at his special 'numero uno' table in the corner... Editors and politicians come up to the table to jest and clearly feel cheered by the mere sight of him..."
Soames: "Tim Sainsbury once commented on a rather loud, garish tweed I was wearing. I told him that I didn't think it was the place of my grocer to comment on my dress... Prescott is a great beast of the jungle, though I wish he could join up his words together properly... It's always been a sore point that my tailor gave the Prime Minister a fitting at Downing Street but he'll never come and fit me... I'm a believer in the stiff upper lip and having a cold shower and getting on with things..."
Nicholas Soames has been a close friend of Prince Charles since they were both 12 and fishing the same stretch of salmon river in Scotland.
etc etc etc.
It is important to understand. These are the invisible hands that steer the ship.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-53001428
DeleteThere were breaches of planning regulations on the estate where Dominic Cummings stayed during his lockdown trip to Durham, officials have found.
The PM's adviser stayed with his family in what he said was a "cottage" on his parents' farm in April.
Durham County Council would not provide details of what regulations had been broken, or when they happened.
But it said no action would be taken as they were "historic", having happened outside the time limit for enforcement.
Councils have a maximum of between four and 10 years to take action, depending on the nature of the infringement.
An investigation into whether the property where Mr Cummings and his family stayed was correctly registered for council tax is continuing.
Downing Street has been asked to comment but previously declined.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/10/uks-top-prosecutor-threatened-with-legal-action-if-dominic-cummings-not-investigated
DeleteWhilst waiting for the Government to announce (possibly tomorrow) whether or not its going to outsource parts of probation, it might be worth noting that (definitely today) they've announced 'updates' to the Outsourcing Playbook.
ReplyDeleteHaven't delved too deep into the changes, but can't help wondering if there's any connection with the 'update' and the MoJs recent decision on reconsidering their position on outsourcing aspects of probation?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/updated-outsourcing-playbook
'Getafix
You're such a cynic Getafix...
Delete"Requirement for Pilots
Where a service is being outsourced for the first time, there is a presumption that a pilot should be run as part of a programme of testing.Piloting a service delivery model is the best way to understand the environment, constraints, requirements, risks and opportunities. Pilots also provide a wealth of quality data and can help inform technical specifications"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891144/Outsourcing_Playbook_JUNE_2020_WEB.pdf
It's clearly the MoJ taking the proverbial piss!
DeleteOh I see it's not an MoJ document - doesn't apply to them anyway! :)
Delete"Outsourcing Playbook" - delusions of grandeur on the global stage?
DeleteNah, more likely to have been written by Brian Cant & Floella Benjamin:
"Look! Big Ted's going to be a pilot today and Little Ted will be his co-pilot. What's that Jemima? You want to be the pilot? But who'll serve the passengers their drinks?!? Humpty? But he won't fit down the aisle...etc"