As June 26th and 'reunification' rapidly approaches, it seems that according to HMI Justin Russell everything is on track, apart that is for staffing issues and concerns over services. Quite amusing if it wasn't so bloody serious of course.
As a bit of a curtain raiser, we have the Times highlighting the significantly skewed age profile of probation officers, the Service having steadfastly done its best to purge the ranks of any remaining mature free thinkers post TR, substituting a robust 'JFDI' policy along the way:-
Call for boost in numbers of older probation staffBritain needs to hire older probation officers to keep pace with a rise in geriatric prisoners convicted of historical sex offences, the chief inspector of probation has said.
Justin Russell said many elderly offenders struggled to respond to probation officers who were significantly younger. He urged the Ministry of Justice to target older people as part of its recruitment drive and to encourage them to transfer from other careers.
He was speaking before the re-nationalisation of probation services next month, following the disastrous semi-privatisation of providers by Chris Grayling, the former justice secretary, seven years ago.
A report by inspectors found major gaps in probation workforces, with parts of the south of England recording a vacancy rate as high as 35 per cent.
An increasing number of elderly prisoners convicted of historical sex abuse are coming to the end of their sentences following the surge in prosecutions over the past decade. There are almost 5,000 prisoners in England and Wales over the age of 60, making up one in 16 inmates and a 243 per cent increase in the past 20 years. The number of prisoners serving time for sexual offences has almost tripled since 2002, with older inmates disproportionately represented among this cohort. There are more than 13,000 prisoners serving time for sexual offences.
Russell said: “I think the probation service needs some older staff with a broader age range, with other life experiences in terms of engaging with older offenders.”
Actually, it's a bit more serious, as one seasoned commentator to this blog put it:-
Anyway, this from the report and specifically that relating to staffing issues:-
The probation service has gone through many changes over the last 20 years, most recently through the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda, which saw delivery split between private and public sector provision. HM Inspectorate of Probation has commented previously on our concerns about the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation. The planned unification of provision this June will draw probation services back together into one new delivery model in the public sector – we welcome this decision. A significant change programme to deliver this unification and a new longer-term operating model has been launched. If the benefits of the model are fully realised and backed by adequate resources, this will address many of our previous recommendations to improve probation delivery. Unlike Transforming Rehabilitation, the large majority of staff and managers we spoke to support this direction of travel.
This unification programme is no small endeavour and will see staff from 54 separate organisations coming together on day one of the model, 26 June 2021. An ambitious task in itself, but with the added complication of delivering this change within the context of a global pandemic which adds considerable extra complexity and has affected the ability of the service to plan the transition. Day one of the new unified service represents the beginning, not the end, of the transformation process. The amalgamation of inherited structures and the implementation of a new operating model will take time – potentially at least four years – and there will be inherent risks. The pace with which this change programme is being delivered is fast and is happening against the backdrop of ongoing Covid-19 restrictions.
Our findings are based on fieldwork undertaken between October 2020 and February 2021. The inspection team interviewed over 200 people involved in the reform programme including every regional probation director and national workstream lead as well as frontline staff in five probation regions. We found a rapidly evolving picture and a notable increase in the momentum of planning and preparation as our fieldwork progressed. As key milestones were reached and plans started to crystallise, our confidence (and that of key stakeholders) increased in the service’s ability to transition successfully to a new unified structure on 26 June.
Our judgement is that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure continuity of sentence management from day one of the service. A ‘lift and shift’ approach means that probation officers (POs) and probation services officers (PSOs) are taking their existing caseloads and line managers into the unified service for the first few months to reduce risks of service users being ‘lost’ in the transition. Good progress has been made to transfer Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) office accommodation to HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS); the roll-out of new laptops, mobile phones and Ministry of Justice IT accounts has also started for CRC staff.
I do, however, have concerns in a number of areas. The Inspectorate has reported previously on staffing issues; these remain and are particularly acute in some regions. While plans are in place to recruit and train additional probation officers, they will take time to come on stream and reach full capacity. There is a challenge for the service to bring all staff together and develop a new cohesive culture for the unified model, where ex-CRC staff have the same status and respect as their ex-NPS colleagues. The Dynamic Framework which is being used to procure additional rehabilitative support for service users is running behind schedule for some services, leaving little time for new providers to mobilise a new service by the end of June. In some regions, there may be gaps on day one. Resettlement work will also require close attention. I have been pleased to see the difference that additional funding for Through the Gate services has made over the past three years to work with prisoners being released from custody. In our most recent round of inspections we rated eight out of 10 CRCs as ‘Outstanding’ on this aspect of service provision. There is a real concern that this progress is put at risk as these contracts are terminated, teams are broken up and new providers put in place. Strong regional leadership will be needed to ensure this does not happen.
I am grateful to everyone that has engaged in this inspection and been responsive to the independent feedback that we have provided the probation reform programme to inform the transition activity. Probation staff across the board should be commended for their resilience and hard work during these challenging times. Day one is very much the start of the journey for the new unified probation service, and I look forward to seeing progress in our future regular inspection programme.
Justin Russell
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
----//----
The process for transferring staff from CRCs to the new probation service is gathering pace. We are satisfied that all eligible staff will be transferred by day one. The process of allocating heads to the 108 local Probation Delivery Units (PDUs) is due to be complete by April 2021; these will be key leadership roles for frontline delivery. Some staff roles do not map across easily to the structure of the new organisation – this will have to be resolved following unification.
CRC caseloads will transfer to the unified service, with probation practitioners retaining current caseloads for the period immediately after transition. In time – once ex-CRC staff have been fully trained in the management of higher risk cases and current NPS staff have been trained in the full range of low to medium risk cases – all practitioners will manage a blended caseload of higher and lower-risk cases. Some regions are planning to implement the new workload management tool early to inform the allocation of cases. In order to ensure cases are being managed by appropriately trained staff, we recommend changes to case allocation are made in accordance with the plans set out in the TOM.
Many staff within CRCs managed by MTC and Seetec, who have their own case management systems, will not be fully trained and skilled in the use of the NPS OASys6 and nDelius7 systems prior to day one. While contingencies have been identified and staff will be able to view a pdf of the previous assessment on nDelius, until all staff are trained, this will place a burden on those who have the experience of using these systems to support those who do not.
Additional newly-qualified probation officers and trainee PQiPs are a welcome boost to staffing numbers. However, it is recognised that this group of new staff will have continuing learning needs, protected caseloads and limited capacity in the short-term. The impact of this will fall on senior probation officers (SPOs) and more experienced probation officers who are already feeling the other additional pressures of going through a significant change programme.
While the staff and caseload transfer processes appear to be on track for day one, there is still much to do to ensure all staff have access to the relevant training, learning and development opportunities and manageable workloads in the longer term.
Staff
Nationally, there is a huge amount of work needed to support the transition of some 8,500 (7,500 full time equivalent) CRC staff to the new structure, while also supporting the HR and workforce needs of those in the NPS. There are many interdependencies across the transition programme, with the picture ever changing. Delays in the commissioning of some services in some regions through the Dynamic Framework will affect staff working for current providers, who remain uncertain about whom they will be working for after June. Contractors have been brought in to support the HMPPS central team with some elements of this workstream. We question if there is sufficient time left to complete the volume of essential staff transfer processes, needed in the months to June 2021, with the existing resource.
Delays in the process of assigning roles in the unified service have led to a high degree of uncertainty for many staff. The future roles and responsibilities for those with a sentence management role carries more certainty than for other staff, particularly those in corporate and resettlement functions. The majority of staff responsible for delivering accredited programmes and rehabilitation activity requirements (RARs) will transfer into specialist interventions teams in the new structure. However, other staff will transfer to Dynamic Framework providers, for example those providing some outsourced Through the Gate support services. While all staff have been guaranteed a role in the new unified model with a three-year period of pay protection, anxiety prevails because of this uncertainty. The lack of timely sharing of some staff data by the CRC parent organisations and lengthy quality assurance processes for this data by HMPPS has contributed to much of the delay, with external contractors to HMPPS struggling to understand the context in which their data assurance exercises are taking place.
The allocation of assistant chief officers, for example to each local Probation Delivery Unit, was originally scheduled to be completed in Autumn 2020 and the delay of this until March/April 2021 has been unhelpful. In a period when these senior managers should be driving transition forward, and supporting their teams, their own roles in the future model have remained uncertain. Some of the challenges around staffing are, in fact, not transition related, and we have commented on staffing challenges for both NPS and CRCs for a number of years. Some regions have a significant vacancy rate for qualified probation officers, as high as 35 per cent. This issue is most acute in southern regions and is likely to continue to remain a challenge. The workforce professionalisation agenda is ambitious but for it to be successful, sufficient qualified probation officers need to be in place. The recruitment of 1,000 probation trainees (PQiPs) has continued throughout the pandemic, but it will take time for them to become sufficiently skilled. There is also a balance to be struck between the number of PQiPs undergoing training and the necessary infrastructure, including managers and assessors, to support them. As the old probation divisions separated into new probation regions in summer of 2020, existing senior leadership teams were split between them, leaving some new regions with gaps to be filled. Good progress has been made in filling Heads of Operation posts. However, other important regional positions remain vacant. In particular, the Heads of Community Integration posts which will lead regional commissioning of services had yet to be filled at the end of February 2021 – only four months before transition. We think the new regional leadership teams lack a dedicated post to lead on resettlement work to oversee the quality of release planning and resettlement work across each region and support local PDU heads of service with this crucial function.
The issue of how experienced staff have been treated continues to cause enormous anger as highlighted here and left on the previous blog post:-
ReplyDelete"Oh, how quickly they forget... 'older probation officers' were, and continue to be, treated like shit by MoJ/HMPPS/NPS. Their careers, their experience, knowledge & skills targeted, rubbished & thrown overboard post-TR, their long-service redundancy stolen from them & handed to snakes in cheap suits. Many weren't even offered the courtesy of a reference.
The "new order" didn't want or need them; they had plenty of compliant staff; the simple serpents had a recruitment drive to replace the dinosaurs; there were enough lickspittles to cover the bases & fulfil the roles of "excellent leaders".
So Fuck You MoJ/HMPPS/NPS. Reap what you sow, you disingenuous pack of charlatans.
However, what they *will* reap, regardless of the parlous state of the justice system & the destruction of the probation service, are generous remuneration packages, imperial gongs & gilt-edged pensions.
Even more public money wasted in scandalous profligacy on uselessness."
There was a large archive of experienced probation staff comments on the several versions of Napo's Forum - before and after it was invaded by the "Families need fathers" protestors.
DeleteNapo has deleted them all from view. I recollect asking at some point in some way - I cannot recall when, what exactly, or how I asked - about it being archived for historical reasons - but I cannot remember receiving a response - I did not pursue it further.
Maybe a full member will ask a direct question via the National Executive or AGM and report back here?
I would be interested to see such information, but maybe I am alone or one of very few.
So what should HMPPS do to encourage older and experienced staff to stay/return? Answers on a postcard...
ReplyDeleteA good financial offer obviously
Also, speaking for myself, provision of extra admin support to help me with the IT. and/or extra time in view of the difficulties I find grappling with the IT. It's partly an age thing, I guess, it causes me as much stress per day as my high risk cases. But it is also because the IT systems are absolutely dreadful by any standards. Bolt-ons on bolt-ons, silos, duplication.
Interesting to see the Probation Institute has weighed-in on the discussion via Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"This is a worrying conversation. Probation is a professional activity - which needs properly remunerating - but its not about age identity. Should young officers be recruited specifically to work with younger service users?"
A good and absolute reason to mount some properly assessed professional boundaries. No noise from the union's then. I don't rate the pi a bunch of fellows in a clique with bodies in trenches behind their awful careers. Most of who helped tr in the front door. It is a race to low grade work on lower pay no myopia here .
DeleteGlad to read you have 2020 vision. It would help if we focus that gaze on the pay issue role boundary or duties . Age offence gender are critical matters for experienced colleagues to decide what approaches to adopt when engaging. Complication of drugs alcohol mental health abusive relations will all redirect. However some skilled fundamental studies to behaviour and social strata has to be a basic starting point for any practice to influence offending behavioural choices. My money is not on untrained or differently skilled experienced staff. I would back a po qualification in many aspects of the social infrastructures that encourage even trigger offending. That base of knowledge helps change in consistent order than floundering around wondering what works. Seen that wasteful experiment.
DeleteI hope this is not a revisit ok knocking others I cannot see it clearly. I do have some sympathy with CRC staff going across on less pay for the soon to be same job. It all reads a bit of a mess but we should try for a role distinction boundary grade or whatever . Demarcation will give is a professional grade at the least and a salary level that protects those who studied for degree to do any bloody job across the complexities of offending any age. Perhaps we can all focus our sight on that . Unions what are they saying.
DeleteI'm disappointed by the twitter comment from the probation institute. Age is important, just as important as gender or race.
ReplyDeleteAge isn't just about the number of years someone has been on the planet. It's about the knowledge and lived experiences that are accrued, formally or informally, through clocking up those years, both in life and through whatever profession you happen to be in.
Experience is invaluable, so much so, you can't get a degree in experience.
Using a football analogy, it's the young, the enthusiastic most promising talented players that come straight from the academies on to the pitch, but that's only a small part of the game. The managers, trainers and coaches, the backroom staff and even the scouts aren't there because of their youthful enthusiasm or innate ability. They're there because of their experience and knowledge gained from running up a fair few years on their life clock.
I suspect Justin Russell was really alluding to the loss of experience that's been lost within the probation service, rather then looking solely at managing those convicted of historical sex offences. It's a problem that's impacting on many professions currently, from the prison service, social work, education and even the police.
Age is important, it brings experience, and that's invaluable.
You can't get a degree in experience!
'Getafix
It was an unusual and probably with hindsight ill-considered and irritated response from the PI on a Saturday afternoon! It's probably worth quoting my reply and PI response after some reflection:-
Delete"Well Justin Russell HMI seems to have started the conversation on this occasion and it's served to ignite much anger as to the treatment of 'legacy' staff post-TR."
PI :- "We completely understand why it would."
"This is a worrying conversation. Probation is a professional activity - which needs properly remunerating - but its not about age identity. Should young officers be recruited specifically to work with younger service users?"
ReplyDeleteThis shows how incompetent the Probation Institute is. It was once widely recognised in probation that life experience was key to engagement and practice. Of course old offenders will engage better with older probation officers. Not in all cases, but many, and if I was on probation I’d be much more comfortable if I wasn’t surrounded by a bunch of 23 year old probation officers who mostly know very little about life.
Probation have already applied similar with women probation officers supervising women offenders. Similar has also been considered for more BAME Probation Officers for BAME offenders. Similar has been considered how to recruit more male probation officers to supervisor male offenders. I see no reason why similar cannot be applied to older offenders.
Yes quite but we have to examine the make up of the pi. Most ex heads of departments or union flakys who sold out to be in a club that assisted tr and failed us in any professional boundary protection. The pi are mainly people who shafted staff they don't know any better.
DeleteSnippet from the Times again (paywall)
ReplyDeletePrison officials have been told that they must stop calling inmates residents, clients or supervised individuals because it creates the wrong impression of criminals.
Alex Chalk, the prisons minister, told civil servants, prison staff, governors and probation officers that they should stick to using the word prisoner, The Times has learnt.
He said the increasing use of alternative language to refer to and address prisoners was sending mixed messages about how the state and wider society perceived serious criminals.
The use of residents is commonplace in guidance in some prisons across England and Wales.
Probation service manuals have rebranded prisoners as supervised individuals and service users.
Some prison officers even refer to prisoners as residents or clients.
Prison officers have warned that referring to prisoners as residents can often be counter-intuitive for the offenders.
'Getafix
Wikipeadia: "Chalk was born on 8 August 1976 in the village of Foxcote, Gloucestershire, England, where he also grew up. He was privately educated at Windlesham House School and Winchester College before studying Modern History at Magdalen College, Oxford. Chalk's parents are Gilbert John Chalk and Gillian Frances Audrey Blois.
DeleteFollowing graduation, Chalk obtained a Graduate Diploma in Law from the City University London, and qualified as a barrister from the Inns of Court School of Law. During his legal career, he has prosecuted and defended in cases concerning terrorism, international fraud, and homicide. He has also advised and defended corporate clients, and prosecuted for HM Revenue and Customs and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. He represented journalists during the phone-hacking scandal.
Chalk was among several Conservative candidates from the 2015 general election under investigation for breaking local campaign spending limits.
In January 2016, the Labour Party unsuccessfully proposed an amendment in Parliament that would have required private landlords to make their homes "fit for human habitation". According to Parliament's register of interests, Chalk was one of 72 Conservative MPs who voted against the amendment who personally derived an income from renting out property."
He likes to keep his income stream raised... MPs who chair Select Committees, or who are members of the Panel of Chairs, are entitled to an additional salary of almost £16,500:
"From June 2015 to January 2019, Chalk was a member of the Justice Select Committee, which scrutinises the government's decisions relating to the justice system. In addition to his role on the Justice Select Committee, Chalk was Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Pro Bono and Co- Chair of the APPG on Cycling. He was also the secretary of the APPG on Public Legal Education and the APPG for Highways and the vice chair of the APPG on Lyme Disease."
So that's at least another £24K in addition to his basic £82K MP's salary. He also continues his private earnings at a rate of £100+/hour - https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25340
"Jail bosses told to stop calling prisoners residents or clients
DeleteMatt Dathan, Home Affairs Editor
Monday May 17 2021, 12.01am, The Times
Prison officials have been told that they must stop calling inmates residents, clients or supervised individuals because it creates the wrong impression of criminals.
Alex Chalk, the prisons minister, told civil servants, prison staff, governors and probation officers that they should stick to using the word prisoner, The Times has learnt.
He said the increasing use of alternative language to refer to and address prisoners was sending mixed messages about how the state and wider society perceived serious criminals.
The use of residents is commonplace in guidance in some prisons across England and Wales.
Probation service manuals have rebranded prisoners as supervised individuals and service users.
Some prison officials even refer to inmates as clients.
The move away from referring to inmates as prisoners is part of efforts to avoid labelling people as offenders in the belief that it will help their rehabilitation. The alternative language is also used by officials, including Jo Farrar, the chief executive of the prison and probation service.
In a speech this year to announce funding for in-cell activities, she said: “All prison governors will be given funding to spend on in-cell activities and extra technology to help our incredible staff support residents to maintain family ties and access support services.”
Guidance at HMP Wandsworth in southwest London says: “Residents have phones in their rooms and are able to make outgoing calls.”
Prison officers have warned that referring to prisoners as residents can often be counter-intuitive for the offenders themselves.
One former officer said: “I have locked some people up in the worst accommodation you can imagine and actually if you called them a resident in that accommodation you’d be taking the mick. Why are we trying to pretend they’re not in prison?”
Ministers fear that moving away from traditional terminology to refer to prisoners risks undermining the public’s trust in the penal system and sends out mixed messages.
A source close to the prisons minister said: “This kind of language does nobody any favours.
“People in prison are there because they have committed serious crimes and need to be locked up to protect the public.
“We should be speaking plainly and not pretending that these people are angels residing in a cell out of choice.”
Andrea Albutt, president of the Prison Governors Association, supported the move. She said: “We’ve used the term prisoner for many, many years. The word prisoner is inoffensive, it refers to everyone who’s in prison — whether they are on remand and unconvicted or convicted. It doesn’t really matter what crime they may have committed — they are a prisoner.
“We’ve had residents, we’ve had clients, we’ve had service users — all sorts. It muddies the water. Prisoner is simple, it’s inoffensive and it refers to every single person who is in prison.” "
We now have PoPs. People on Probation. I read it in a recent PI. No more SUs, offenders etc
DeleteWhen HMPPS organises the deletion of the "offender" label from its databases, the ones that everyone working in the system sees every day, I will give some credence to this virtue signalling. Hang on, no, cant wish for that, because that would necessitate the establishment of a Change The Culture Manager, with a #workstream #budget. And recruitment of staff away from the actual work, Just shove some blummin' money at the coal face, we are desperate
ReplyDelete