Independent Voices

There's now less than a month to go before the probation service effectively disappears completely from public view behind a civil service wall of tight information command and control. We've all become pretty much used to Napo effectively disappearing from the stage, staff are increasingly unwilling or feel unable to speak openly and once proudly independent campaigning voices become silenced, either through contracts, personnel changes or some form of pressure either implied or explicit. The tumbleweed is on the horizon even here, but before it takes over fully, lets continue to highlight whatever independent voices remain. Here's 'Getafix and then the outgoing Frances Crook of the Howard League:-         

"Man down the pub tells me that in my area the 6 current accommodation workers are being slashed to 1 under the new contract and will hold 'group' sessions instead of 1-2-1's. Not sure how that will provide the same level of service, or cover any diversity or vulnerability issues."

The above comment from yesterday reminds me that Ad Action pulled out from the original TR bidding process for this very reason. Working one to one wasn't a profitable option for their bid partners. Groups got bums on seats, more people, more money, and really that was what the endeavour was all about.

I'm minded too of St Mungos, (who's staff are currently on strike) where their contract to help homeless people came at the cost of having to share information and data with immigration services and the Home Office.

I'm reminded too of the work programme, where many charities took the King's shilling, and whilst vehemently opposed to benefit sanctions, were required to report claimants they engaged with to the DWP leading directly to sanctions.

I also remember the gagging clauses imposed on them, which for many charities left them unable to lobby on their own causes.

When it comes to service delivery there's a huge void between delivering on a social value ethos and a corporate delivery model. It has to be a conflict of interest, and I fear the third sector may suffer some considerable reputational damage from their involvement in this.

I find it very distasteful that even Clinks are using phrases such as 'supply chains'. They are of course referring to people, not Fair Trade coffee bean. Can a charity really remain a charity with its own personal ethos and mission statement when it becomes a member of state agency? What exactly will the Kings Shilling cost them in the end? Could they see their future CEOs being selected for them by the likes of Maximus or Seetec if they're all involved in the same markets?

I think the risk of reputational damage and loss of independence is massive for the third sector in this venture. They cried foul after being used as bid candy for TR, but I'm inclined to think they may live to view that as a lucky escape from which they'd wished they'd learned some lessons.

'Getafix

--oo00oo--

Frances crook writing for Politics Home:-

Fewer arrests would ease the strain on our over-burdened probation service post-Covid

The last decade has been tumultuous for probation in England and Wales. A service that had operated well for more than a century was torn into fragments in a disastrous part-privatisation.

Performance declined sharply and public confidence ebbed away as high-profile failings and parliamentary inquiries made the headlines. Companies went bust. Demoralised staff watched on as systems were scrapped and maps redrawn. And then came the pandemic.

As the country went into lockdown in March last year, this was a service already under tremendous strain. About a quarter of a million people were under probation supervision, and a research bulletin published that month by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation revealed that less than half of staff believed they had manageable caseloads. A lack of suitable accommodation meant that one in six men, and one in five women, were leaving prison with nowhere to live.

These challenges grew more acute as the realities of the pandemic became clear. Additional funding was found for emergency accommodation, but face-to-face monitoring was pared back to comply with government social distancing guidelines. Supervision over the phone became the norm and support services that probation relies upon, such as mental health and drug and alcohol provision, were reduced. Unpaid work and attendance at courses dropped dramatically.

Many children under supervision had no education or training. Doorstep visits, emails and phone calls replaced face-to-face meetings, while children without access to the internet found it particularly difficult to receive regular contact.

All these changes, and the backlog of cases that has grown as a result, have heaped more pressure on staff who are about to see their working practices alter once again. The failed Transforming Rehabilitation experiment introduced in 2014, which split probation in two and placed much of the work under the responsibility of private companies, has been scrapped. In its place comes a reunified model to be delivered by the public sector.

The Howard League opposed Transforming Rehabilitation from the start and campaigned for the reunification of probation. The new model is undoubtedly a step forward although, as it will be delivered through Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, the charity remains concerned that it will not give probation the independence it needs from Whitehall bureaucracy. These arrangements will become increasingly important if, as seems likely, the service is asked to supervise more people. The government’s plans to recruit more police officers and inflate sentencing, twinned with the impact of lockdown on relationships and employment, will only add to the strain.

Prevention is always better than cure, and so the focus now must be on taking measures that stop people being swept into the criminal justice system in the first place. We can reduce crime and ease the burden on probation – as well as prisons – if we divert people with difficulties to services that can help them, rather than arresting them and bringing them into a system that is overstretched.

This is why, throughout the pandemic, the Howard League has continued to work with police forces to reduce arrests of women and children. By promoting good practice and encouraging officers to use their professional discretion, we have helped reduce arrests of children by more than 70 per cent over the last decade, giving hundreds of thousands of boys and girls a brighter future. We are trying to match this success with women and hope this will provide a template for doing the same for men.

This is the innovation we need to see to help a reunified probation service meet the challenges ahead.

Frances Crook is chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform