Pick of the Week 50

Interesting to read how many criminal justice/probation practitioners disagree with each other about the parole process ref-Worboys. Is that indicative of a broken system or a widespread lack of understanding/knowledge?

*****
That's a good point to make, as you'd expect those working in the system to have a shared understanding of procedures, protocols and responsibilities. The constant chopping and changing of processes doesn't help, nor the loss of experienced hands. It can look like the chaos of Keystone Cops – full of well-meaning energy, but full of cross purposes.

*****
In the meantime various 'Think Tanks' are positioning something that is being branded as Justice Devolution and under its banner there is the chance of another Probation revolution ranging from complete privatisation of Probation services to various hybrids under various local umbrellas. And, I am not hearing any Probation lead on these matters. Again, I ask who is speaking for Probation, who are our leaders and what are they saying? Come on people, wake up, others are deciding your destiny.

*****
It’s the right move. There must be evidence to support prosecutions and all involved must remember its ‘innocent until proven guilty’ not the other way around. “Speaking as a cop, opposed to a citizen, I’m interested in crime. If it’s a long time ago, or it’s very trivial, or I’m not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I’m not going to spend a lot of resources on it. And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.”

*****
Unless it results in spousal assaults and/or sexual assault under a banner of misunderstandings. This woman is dangerous in her trivialisations and has obviously never been a victim. No wonder London crime rates are out of control when the governor tells her officers to dismiss sexualised behaviours. DV used to be termed 'a civil matter' until the law got wise. Shame on u Cressida.

*****
I agree with evidence based prosecution and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but the timing of this policy is astounding. It was not taking the allegations of some of the victims (perhaps a presumption of misunderstanding or clumsy behaviour???) that has been the real root of the controversy surrounding the Warboys case. Perhaps it's an attempt of some sort to distance the Met from its failings with Worboys, but it's not the first controversial comments she's made in her short time in charge. Unfortunately, the devolution of justice issues to London will give her a far freer hand to impose her own ideology on the people of the capital. I think we'll be hearing from Cressida (and about her) on a pretty regular basis.

*****
Think what she says is eminently sensible and to attack her is hysterical. All she is saying is that she is only interested in behaviour that passes a criminal threshold, that actually breaches a law that's on the statue book. She rightly says treat all complainants with respect, listen to their complaint, investigate, gather evidence and then see if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. An allegation only becomes a fact if it's corroborated by evidence. What would you prefer? Trial based on allegations, or trial by evidence? Some Valentine cards may be unwelcome, but more likely the result of a misunderstanding than stalking or harassment.

*****
It's amazing how the demand for transparency with regard to the Parole Board is such an urgent priority, whilst all the failures of privatised probation services can be hidden away under the guise of corporate confidentiality. Transparency should be essential to all public services.

*****
Too much process and too many involved. The Worboys and the many other judicial challenges of Parole Board decision show that the Parole Board is not fit for making release decisions. Excepting whole life sentences, there should be fixed release dates for every prisoner. Recall periods should be in proportion to the sentence with a fixed release date, eg automatic release after a third of the remaining sentence period. Simple as.

*****
We have to accept that the Worboys decision was erroneous, but the Board generally do a good job. Some tinkering maybe around transparency and around allowing Boards to be chaired by lay people only under certain circumstances. That said, judges can make erratic chairs also. I know one who appears to sleep through most of proceedings. As much as I despise what has happened to legal aid, I fear that too much was used in paying so called 'independent psychologists' in this case.

*****
Fundamentally, the Parole Board must be doing a good job in evaluating risk if there is only a 1% chance of a parolee committing a further serious offence. The Worboy's case was more about the history of police failures to investigate at the outset and for Worboys to be charged by the CPS to adequately reflect the extent of his offending. Probation was also criticised over victim contact, but in fact all those who wanted to be kept informed were kept informed and those who did not wish victim contact had their wishes respected. The only mud thrown at probation related to some poorly drafted letters.

But as with other notorious cases – Harry Roberts with a parole tariff of 30 years spent 48 years in prison, released aged 78 – the reality is that the public would be quite content to see Worboys die in prison. It's not about future risks, it's about an enduring retribution. That's the irrationality at the heart of this case and no amount of tinkering with the Parole Board will prevent similar moral outrages in the future.

*****
The reconviction rates for serious offenders is low so Parole Board releases on the whole will always look like they’re “doing a good job”. There’s been many successful challenges of Parole Board decisions to not release. Worboys is the first challenge of a decision to release I think. It shows in too many instances Parole Board members are not suitably qualified to make release decisions. You really tell the difference when former judges, probation officers or psychologists are on the panel instead of the local butcher, baker or candlestick maker. An audit of paroled prisoners over the past 5 years would show there have been many, many dodgy Parole Board decisions, inc with illogical rationale and lack of information. This highly subjective process can be disbanded if every prisoner has a fixed released date. Not every country has a Parole Board.

*****
If you abolished indeterminate sentences, it would be compensated for by increasing the length of determinate sentences and we end up, like the US, imposing sentences of hundreds of years. Do you know of any country that does not make use of indeterminate sentences? How do they deal with heinous crimes?

*****
The IPP sentence was a move towards a ‘risk-based penal strategy’, with proportionality taking a back seat to public protection and future risk prediction. It is partly based on the US ‘3 strikes’ policy and it's heavy use of life sentences for a wide range of offences. So to the commenter above, we’re already following our friends across the pond. If the Parole Board system worked we wouldn’t have thousands of IPP’s languishing in prison many years over tariff. Indeterminate type sentences, quite legal under European law, could have fixed release dates and I question whether sentencing judges are happy knowing 15 years later flawed risk assessments will undermine the tariffs they set. 

There is not much point in parole and early release process when we have a prison system that can’t prepare people for release, a Parole Board that hasn’t the expertise and capacity to release, except serial rapists apparently, and a probation system that isn’t resourced to assist once released. We once abolished the death penalty, we ended the pre-90’s ‘one chance’ at parole, we did away with IPP sentences, and whole life sentences are now under scrutiny. There is an argument for an end to early parole and sentences without fixed release dates.

*****
Not every prisoner, probationer and hostel resident has psychological problems or personality disorders. The push to ‘screen’ all for PD without their knowledge is very concerning. So is the drive for PIPE prison wings and hostels which force individuals into psychological interventions to be released or be granted a hostel bed. How much is being spent on this PIPE rubbish? The only ones seeming to benefit are the psychologists!

*****
I absolutely agree re the psychologists benefiting. PD services seem to have created a whole new self-interested and self-absorbed industry. If you ask any MoJ/ NHS psychologist to assess someone for PD or anything else it seems they make it their purpose to find something to 'treat', despite their being very little treatment that service users will actually engage with.

*****
“PD” has become an industry unto itself. “PD” probation officers are running around generating importance for themselves. “PIPE” has become the buzzword for AP’s, which amounts to PSO’s having a group chat about once a week and an inexperienced psychologist telling them what they already know. 

Every offender on my caseload has been “screened in” (not be me) for “personality disorder”. None are aware they have been categorised for “PD” and are being discussed and assessed for psychological interventions (I’m not sure what is actually on offer). Most just need a job and a decent place to live! I get it, psychologist have to eat, but there’s probably more “PD” amongst the Probation managers!

*****
I agree with these sentiments. Probation has moved away from the social to the psychological, and people on our caseloads have been pathologised.

*****
10% of all Approved Premises and 50% of the female AP estate is provided by the Voluntary Sector a great team. Up until 45 years ago all Probation Hostels & Homes were provided and run by voluntary sector providers, some very small and local. It was not until legislation in the early 1970s that Probation Committees were first allowed to directly run Probation and Bail Hostels. Alongside the expansion of new Probation & Bail Hostels run by Probation Committees over the next 30 years, many previously voluntarily managed Probation Hostels were 'taken over' by the Probation Service and their assets absorbed in to the Crown Estate.

*****
This is good news but the demise of supported housing “hostels” and move-on accommodation is just as risky for Probation and the public. Two high risk of harm services have disappeared in my county with a loss of 24 bed spaces. Decent supported housing providers are being edged out of the market by profiteering companies, CRC writ large....

*****
Addiction defines a persons identity. It dictates what you do, and it's what you do that lays the fabrics and blocks that shape identity. The labels that are attached to an addict may compound things, but it's the addiction itself that creates the identity. Physical dependency is painful and traumatic, but short-lived, and the first necessary step to beating addiction. Staying clean is the complicated bit. A whole new identity is needed, a re-creation of the self. 

A three year programme as described above goes a very long way in addressing that need for a changed identity, it should be applauded, but there's also a concern for me. An addict can go to prison for three years, create a new identity for themselves, often a healthy one in the gym, stay off drugs the whole three years, but when that new-found identity is removed upon release, the familiar structures, the people gone that see you as your new identity defines you, many return to their old familiar self's and begin to use again. 

Spending three years in a community described above, helping to build that community, getting a sense of purpose and self worth, and doing so with a shared commonality with the others on the programme must certainly create that new identity. But it's only temporary and there must be a huge sense of loss when the time comes to move on. Those are dangers that I hope the programme can mitigate along the way, and I hope all that are lucky enough to be part of it really find it a life changing experience.

*****
Similar thoughts and I see value in the scheme as you do. For the majority though services need I think to focus on those issues in the local community which requires continuity of investment in community resources.

*****
No one saying anything about a connection between rising violent crime in London and the decimation of probation service as well as criminal breeding grounds that prisons have become? Cuts to public sector including the massive cuts to youth service and policing over past 10 years or so, social services and YOT's mean far less preventative work and opportunities to divert young people from crime. Social media and addiction of millions of young people to violent gaming is also playing a part. In addition reduction in time parents can spend with their children because they are having to work flat out to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not rocket science really!

*****
Now then, MoJ, look what happens when you remove a vast swathe of experienced skilled professionals from the Probation & Prison Services... you have to pay some numpty £millions to "create" an algorithm that assesses risk. Remember OASys? That was a fuck up too. Will you ever learn? No! I can't wait to read MoJ's PR about lowest prisoner numbers since the beginning of time, etc etc etc, with Young Rory singing the praises.

*****
It's my view that the third sector and the private sector are just two heads of the same dog. They structure their corporate arrangements very similar, and reward those at the top with obscene amounts of money and associated benefits. The third sector get government funding, EU funding, Lottery funding, have reduced business rates and tax and VAT breaks. They also benefit greatly from a huge amount of unpaid labour carried out by volunteers. Yet they're still prepared to involve themselves in anything that can bring in a few quid despite what reputational damage it attracts. The work programme being just one. The private sector get millions from government contracts, local councils, PCCs. They're allowed to limit their liabilities despite the vast amounts of money that they pay to shareholders, and can hide pretty much anything they want through a corporate confidentiality clause. 

It doesn't seem to matter that every inspection and report produced shows damning failures and poor practice, it's always a cry for more money. More, more, more! It's high time the government gave both sectors a good hard kick up the arse, and remind them that when they're using public funds they need to be honest brokers, and deliver the services that are being paid for in the way they need to be provided. TR is in its fourth year, the conversation should be about how to improve services and working conditions, and not about how the spoils should be shared out.

*****
Police cuts are of course going to have an impact on crime. But the rise of violent crime in London shouldn't be seen just as a criminal justice issue. It's the amalgamation and the coming together of years of shite social policies, and our neoliberal right wing Conservative government should harbour much of the blame. Much of the explanations been given relate to gangs and drugs. But if you have a drug policy that leaves drugs in the domain of criminal fraternities, then the relationship between gangs and drugs will always exist. But it's education and housing policy too. Leaving school with few or no qualifications from a class size of 40 and over pupils and living somewhere like Broadwater farm or Tower Hamlets is likely to leave the option of benefits or a zero hour contract at KFC.

Housing is a national issue, but a huge problem in London. But to raise funds many local councils are selling off social housing to the private sector. That's resulting in high concentrations of the poorest and socially deprived people being pushed into certain areas. Some call it social cleansing, but it certainly creates ghettos and large areas where social deprivation is the common defining factor. It's not drugs and gangs, just as its not drugs, drones and mobile phones that's caused the prison crisis. It's failed social and political policy. It's austerity and the decisions that are being taken to combat vicious cuts, and the government need to accept resolution will only come from being more socially oriented because the free market isn't going to fix it, the free market approach is part of the problem.

*****
T'ain't rocket science, is it? Poor social policy, closure of youth services, schools further and further away from home, bedroom tax breaks up communities, social care services decimated, family centres closing etc etc etc. Whaddaya know, an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime. What are the causes? Too much UK money going into the hands of a small number of individuals instead of into public services. And if I hear 'legal highs' blamed for anything else, I am going to scream.

*****
I used to work in Approved Premises before taking early retirement. Over the years (1998 - 2016) I attended many different training courses including OASys. It was on this course that I pointed out that at Approved Premises we occasionally accepted individuals on bail who had no previous convictions and were pleading 'not guilty' to their alleged offence. Despite this they were still subjected to an assessment process which labelled them as an 'offender'. The course tutor was unable to give a satisfactory answer. I always thought that Probation staff should be non judgement.

*****
I'm sure prison officers on the landings, already struggling with understaffing, violence, drugs, and concerned for their safety, will really appreciate trips back and forward to the office to input data in real time. Where does all this data end up?

*****
There isn't a lack of information, there's a lack of rehabilitation. Reform must be music in the ears of IT consultants. It's the old mantra of doing the same things all over again and expecting a different result. Bring in Cambridge Analytica - they know a thing or two about influencing people.

*****
A realistic quantity of quality time in contact with clientele is absolute bottom line for rehabilitation. Then by all means angst about definitions and achievement of "quality". Then fart-arse about with technology if you must. Sigh.

*****
I find it pretty amazing that Amber Rudd identifies drugs as being one of the main drivers for the creation of gangs and rising violent crime, and yet say nothing on how she intends to tackle that driver. Drugs are here, and they're not going to go away. Drugs create all kinds of problems and simply taking an ideological view that says "drugs are harmful so we won't tolerate them", is frankly to my mind idiotic and irresponsible. 

There will always be an illegal trade in drugs as there is with their legalised counterparts tobacco and alcohol, but the war on drugs is a war that doesn't need to be fought. Take them out of the hands of criminals, take the huge revenues they generate and the potential business opportunities available and do good things for society. Be pragmatic about drugs, accept they're a problem that's not going away and manage that problem in the best way possible.

*****
This is increasingly tiresome. Reams and reams of paper to tell us that what we all said would happen has happened and that the train crash we all predicted has taken place. Another enquiry taking months to tell us what we already know.

The problem with Probation is that the Prison management that took it over disrespected it, devalued it and mismanaged it. Carter put the wrong people in charge and they screwed it up completely. Nothing more to say. The solution is to extricate Probation from the grip of the Prison Service and allow it to operate independently. That will at least give us a chance. Whilst the Prison Service management continue to see command and control as a means of managing the Probation arm of the HMPPS and whilst those same people think that the private sector have anything to offer Probation, the whole ethos of the model will remain compromised and beyond repair. This was said BEFORE this shit storm started and they all know it.

*****
It's just a process of marking time until the contracts can be re-tendered. Halfway through now, keep talking about it and the seven years will soon pass. Maybe what should be being considered is the cost of probation contracts next time around. It's bound to be double if not more then the original arrangements or there won't be many willing to take them on.

*****
"An important aspect of self-legitimacy is the extent to which practitioners feel that they are enabled and supported by their organisation and that they internalise the values represented by their organisation (Bradford and Quinton 2014). In our view, the current situation means that the self-legitimacy of many practitioners is, at the very least, in some doubt. This in turn may lower morale and foster discontent with the quality services provided to those under supervision".

A few days ago, under pressure, I cancelled an appointment to visit a vulnerable, traumatised woman in prison, in order to get ahead of the "performance" priorities. I didn't seek authority for this decision, and when I mentioned it to my manager, it was nodded through. After an afternoon battering a keyboard, and hitting every performance target I had, I came home feeling... like a bit of me had died. Lord knows how my client feels, I don't, seeing as I wasn't there.

*****
This blog post more than most struck a chord with me. I did not start in the Probation profession to make my fortune, I had a zeal to make a tangible difference in all quarters that we were tasked with. I valued being a part of a cohesive profession that reached beyond itself and sought to connect with all who had similar ambitions. I was interested in creating a relationship with the people I worked with and engaging with the evidence of what worked. I valued the experience of those before me and learning from them. I valued professional supervision and on-going professional development. My skills after a decade and more of working with people is way beyond what I could have imagined when I started. When we talk about culture, it is hard to reconcile my ideas with making a profit and dividend payments to shareholders. Culture and values matter to me and those who we serve I believe.

*****
As a client of the probation service, this article has given me a very valuable insight into the difficulties faced by those who want to actually help people better their lives. It must be soul destroying to be under the influence of such regressive policies. Hats off to anyone who sticks at it. Surely the tide will have to turn soon.

*****
Attachment, responsibility, purpose, are the cornerstones for a reasonably stable life. For some, those things can't be achieved with other people. There can be many reasons why that might be so. Todays blog reminds of a book I once read many years ago (80s I think), called life after life. I've had a quick search this morning but can't find it, though there seems to be quite a few with the same title. It was really a collection of observational studies on half a dozen people that had served life sentences and how they coped (or didn't) upon release. One of the people in the book was a woman, who on release quickly found her life in chaos. She was recalled many times and the time spent on recall surpassed the time served on her original sentence. 

After serving 7years on her last recall, someone, perhaps her probation officer, suggested she might like to keep a pet, and she found herself with a dog. From that moment on her life changed, no more chaos, no more offending, and no more recalls. A sense of contentment or even happiness perhaps? Whatever it was, the animal had the most amazing and positive impact on the woman's life.

*****
If vetting is being linked to the issuing of laptops, then it would be legitimate to question if it's the integrity of the IT systems and software that's driving the need for vetting and not the user.

*****
I cannot think why. If it is, then as usual the staff are punished and made to jump through hoops for probation’s failures. Vetting or not, there will always be one person that leaves their laptop on the train! And Vetting doesn’t make IT more secure, not so long ago I recall reading about a number of police prosecuted for sharing PNC details. They were vetted! Imagine what your probation Vetting coordinators sitting in your offices will be doing with all your confidential information about you and your family?

*****
Personal view only, and it relates to purpose and identity, both of which I feel probation has struggled with in recent years. If probation is an organisation that provides assistance and support to help offenders steer their lives back onto the right track and help them maintain a stable existence (as probation once did) then vetting is not going to be an issue beyond the normal CRB check. However, once probation positions itself, and more and more sells itself, as an agency of public protection, then it becomes an 'agent of the state' and can have no real objection to being subjected to the same criteria that the state impose on other public protection agencies such as police. 

If you see probation as a service that assists offenders, helps with rehabilitation and are of course "constantly mindful" of public protection, I think you have reason to complain about the level of vetting. If however you view probation as a service of public protection that also provides some assistance where possible to the offenders you manage, then I think you have to accept the level of vetting other public protection agencies are subjected to.

*****
Canada is in the process of legalising illicit drugs, and the Republic of Ireland, a country where possession of a condom makes you a sinner, is considering legalisation of cannabis and allowing Dutch style coffee shops. Andrew Boff the very right wing Conservative member of the London Assembly has caused a huge row by calling for the legalisation of drugs in response to Amber Rudds violent crime strategy. Does the legalisation and regulation of drugs make a society more tolerant? No it doesn't. It makes it more responsible. How, in probation for example, can you help someone with a drug problem if disclosure of use is also the admission of an offence? 

Drugs are a blot on society, but only because they're management, supply, constitution and regulation are left in the control of criminal gangs. The USA's prohibition era is a perfect example of what happens when you ban supply but demand remains. There will always be a demand for drugs, and a big demand, so there will always be someone prepared to supply them. It's the basic economic model of supply and demand that our conservative government are so proud to boast about. Accept the problem and take ownership of it, otherwise it will just get worse. It's not being tolerant about drug use, it's being responsible about the impact drugs have on society.

*****
Not a vote winner the liberal government in Canada were deemed a few years ago to have no chance however standing on a platform including legalising cannabis soon changed that. For the record it is due to come into force in July and the person who has been in charge of implementation is the ex chief police officer of Toronto.

****
I don't see why an organised pilot and investigation into the pros and cons of drug legalisation could not be conducted in the UK. Select three areas defined as socially deprived, that already have a drug problem and high unemployment, allow local government in those areas to produce and sell cannabis in an organised way for 18 months, and then assess what impact it has had socially and economically on that area. I think the economic benefits would be considerable to areas like Blackpool, Grimsby or Sunderland, and the information gathered on drug related crime and unemployment would help inform national drug policy. If no benefits are realised, then just pull the plug.

*****
Any legalisation of drugs would have to remain under strict State control. Privatising or outsourcing any aspect of drug legalisation to corporations such as Sodexo, Interserve, G4s etc, would just be the same as handing back control to the criminals.

*****
I'm very disappointed with the response today's blog has attracted. Every probation officer in the country must have a case load of people that have drug issues. But no one has anything to say. It's very different if the blog is about pay and conditions, privatisation, or being let down by the unions. Everyone's shouting then. You're in it for the money, or you're in it for the cause. It's the safe place, or make a difference. Everyone makes there own mind up.

*****
There’s two comments above, perhaps from probation officers, and mine makes 3. I think it’s only nowadays PO’s are straight-laced-stick-up-the-backside types. Many of the older generation were the weed smoking type so I’m sure many have a view on this issue. In terms of the article at hand, I have mixed feelings. On one hand I support drug legalisation, taxation, etc. On the other, I do not believe it is necessarily the best way to resolve the drug problem. Legal or illegal, drugs are here to stay, but if we can’t have a proper debate about making alcohol illegal then how can we debate making drugs legal. 

I think the way forward is in pilot cities for cannabis legalisation in franchise “coffee shops” and a plant or two permitted for home growing. Other drugs may be available on prescription, such as cannabis oil, heroin, etc, but I don’t think we’ll be reverting back to opium dens any time soon. What I don’t support is this myth that legalising drugs will reduce violent crime because there are many other factors involved. This is political bullshit and not a basis for legalising drugs. Amber Rudd is talking out her backside, as is this silly Adam Smith Institute. For the record in some areas you’re more likely to be mugged buying a bottle of wine from your local offy where all the pissheads congregate than from your dealer who discreetly delivers to your house after hitting him up on Snapchat. Nobody is “going down dark alleyways”!!

*****
An appalling chapter in the history of the British Criminal Justice System and in UK politics. Disgraceful not only because it happened but because it took so many ignorant people to undermine the existing professional organisation. They were warned again and again but wanted their nose in the trough without any comprehension of what was at stake. Carter, Wheatley, Spurr and the King Rat himself, Failing Grayling - all complicit in the debacle and compromised by the obvious inadequacies of Prison Service management. Right wing thinking revealed again for what it is; concrete thinking, prejudicial and, fundamentally, stupid.

*****
In the light of the many reports, whether official, anecdotal or whistleblower, let us be totally & brutally clear what the TR project has led to. It's not - and was never - about the provision of an effective service; its not about the rehabilitation of those sent to work with probation staff by the Courts, either directly or via prison; and its not about having a skilled professional workforce. It is THIS: "All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ." Accountancy, NOT accountability.

*****
After surviving 3 years of MTCnovo I thought I was unshockable. Yesterday was the first day I have felt ashamed to be working as a probation officer. All offender managers have been instructed to inform their people managers (SPOs in MTCnovo parlance) how many service users report after 7pm and how often. Then we heard rumours of the bombshell - evening accredited groupwork programmes will not be offered by London CRC in the coming weeks/months.

For any service user sentenced to an accredited Programme Requirement who is in employment, the expectation will be that the offender manager will make an immediate application to the Court for amendment of the Requirement as unworkable. If true, and my sources are reliable, this is truly a cynical cost-cutting exercise. Cynical because if they have any sense they must know that there will be "blow-back" from the Magistracy/Judiciary. They may be forced to back pedal, but in the interim they will save themselves a few more shekels to earn their annual bonuses.

Offender Managers in London CRC from the 1st May will no longer have face to face contact with our administrators when they move to a central admin hub in Bromley. We were not consulted about this move, it was yet another diktat. The fact that the powers-that-be are looking at how many service users report after 7pm strongly suggest they will close some offices at 7pm but maybe have regional offices for reporting after 7pm?

I thought the point of TR and the involvement of the private sector was to be "consumer" oriented, providing an improved flexible service compared with the dead hand of the inflexible public sector. Instead I am seeing the dismantling of a once proud service before my eyes like a slow motion car crash. God help us all.

Latest From Napo 175

Here we have the latest blog post from Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence:- 

PROBATION UNIONS ORGANISE DAY OF PROTEST OVER PAY

Following my earlier reports on pay over the last few weeks Napo, UNISON (and we hope the GMB) are organising a Day of Protest for members in the NPS and CRCs to show their anger and dismay at the way that probation workers have been treated over the 2017/18 Pay farce and the delays in negotiations over longer term pay reform from 2018 onwards.

As has been made clear, the unions showed great patience during 2017 in the hope that our claims would be treated with respect. Attempts have been made to negotiate with the NPS and CRCs, but with the exception of a few CRCs, members have received little more than the increment which they were contractually entitled to, and members at the top of their pay band received absolutely nothing last year.

Probation staff have been treated far worse over pay than most other public sector workers, with only a 1% pay rise since 2009. That is why the unions are organising a Day of Protest on Friday 18 May for members to show their employer, the Ministry of Justice, and the government, just how strongly you feel about the disrespectful manner in which our claims have been considered. The state of probation pay, across the NPS and the CRCs, is a disgrace,

NATIONAL PROBATION SERVICE

On 16 February 2018, Michael Spurr confirmed that NPS staff would get nothing for their 2017 pay award, other than the contractual increment which staff received back in April last year. The 25% of NPS staff at the top of their pay band have received nothing, and there will be no increase in any allowances.

This was basically because HMPPS top-sliced your pay rise for 2017 to give a 1.7% pay increase for prison staff; £340 million to the CRCs in the big bail out last July and to pay £3,000 market forces payments to all new staff in the South East Division (but not to existing staff in the South East). Therefore, the NPS has spent the money that should have funded a pay rise on other projects.

COMMUNITY REHABILITATION COMPANIES

Only one CRC owner has made a pay offer for 2017, which the unions have been able to recommend. Others have made very low pay awards to staff, but some have done the same as NPS and given only contractual increments to their staff for 2017. The CRCs will no doubt plead poverty, but they got a £340 million bail out last July and, in the majority of CRCs, very little of this cash has trickled down to staff.

It’s time to protest on Friday 18 May

Given the above scenario your National Executive Committee have agreed a range of activities designed to show the NPS, HMPPS and the CRCs that treating probation workers in this way is wrong. That is why we are encouraging all members to take part in a day of protest over pay on 18 May. This will not constitute industrial action and you are not being asked to refuse to undertake your normal duties.

The unions will be producing materials to support the day, including leaflets and placards. We would like members to stage protests in public areas near to your workplaces, contact local MPs to come and meet you, and tell your stories to the local media. More information will be available shortly, but please put 18 May in your diary now.

NPS told pay NMW now

Here is what the unions have told HMPPS following some astonishing prevarication over implementation of new National Minimum Wage rates in the NPS

“As you are aware, the National Minimum Wage increased on 1 April 2018 to £7.83 an hour. This means that pay points 10, 11, 12 and 13 in pay band 1 of the NPS pay and grading scheme must be deleted with effect from 1 April and all staff on these pay points moved immediately to pay point 14, which has an hourly rate of £7.87.

There was some suggestion at yesterday’s TU Engagement Forum that this adjustment could wait until we have concluded our long awaited NPS pay reform, but the unions are not in agreement to the for obvious reason that this would be illegal.

We therefore expect NPS to make the necessary salary adjustment for our members in the April pay run. Any delay risks the NPS being reported for being in breach of the new minimum wage rate. We look forward to confirmation that pay points 10, 11, 12, and 13 will be deleted with effect from this month.”

You could not make it up.

New ICT system shelved by Sodexo CRC’s

The exchanges that I copied you into following the Public Accounts Committee report into the TR contracts show how much difficulty is still being encountered by private providers as they seek to link in to the MoJ portals to allow for better information exchange and case management processes with the NPS.

The track record so far is quite lamentable with only a very few CRC providers actually managing to achieve against the objective and the PAC are asking some pretty awkward questions as a result of this revelation. Over the last week or so Sodexo have announced that they are not progressing with the integration of their new OMS ICT system blaming the technicalities of the MoJ “gateway” as the reason. The company claims that it has heavily invested in this programme and that their operating model was based around the MoJ ICT requirements. Sodexo also claim that the stand alone functionality will lead to benefits for staff but that ball has a high level of spin from what I am picking up from members.

Meanwhile we are making our own enquiries at to what’s going on elsewhere and whether other CRC owners have abandoned, or are considering abandoning their gateway access plans. It was only a few weeks ago that Sodexo gave a commitment that the whole system would be operative in July. I expect that there are some interesting conversations going on right now between CERTAIN contractors and the MoJ.

The great AP Waking Night ‘cover up’

It’s not often I will publish a letter to the Minister whist awaiting a reply. But given what has been going on (or more pertinently what has not) in relation to the AP outsourcing debacle you can read the following joint letter with UNISON with the same sense of disbelief as we have been encountering as this shambolic project gets worse by the day:

Rt Hon David Gauke MP
Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice
12 April 2018

Dear David

Privatisation of NPS Approved Premises Night Waking Cover

Thank you for your letter of 23 February regarding the above. For the reasons set out below, we are not reassured by your reply. In particular you emphasized in your reply that all private contractor staff will be vetted in accordance with the contract, including a disclosure and barring service check and SIA licence. We learned this week, to our disbelief, that HMPPS is seriously considering the removal of the SIA requirement from the contract, because it has proved too onerous for the contractors!

All the evidence over the last month since the contracts went live on 1 March this year, is that all the concerns set out in our letter to you of 13 February have sadly been borne out by events. We need to bring these events to your attention so that you can consider whether there are grounds to suspend the contracts and bring the night waking cover back in house. The decision to advertise these contracts was a mistake which can be laid at the door of your predecessors, but it was your decision alone to proceed with them despite the clear warnings of the dangers of doing so. Here is what is actually happening:

South Contract: OCS

• The unions understand that OCS has already been penalised with ‘service failures’ for being unable to provide the necessary cover in its contract area in the south.
• It has been reported to the unions by South East Divisional management, at the last Divisional JCC, that since 1 March OCS has actually provided no cover at all, save for that delivered by the 9 ex-NPS staff who TUPE transferred to the company on 1 October.
• In the Basildon and Guildford APs, NPS has had to provide all the night waking cover since the contract went live with its own sessional workers.
• We are aware that NPS has instructed AP staff to OCS and log a work order to say that the company has failed to supply a night worker; that way NPS can claim the money back. This is a waste of valuable staff time and a detraction from their core work.
• NPS confirmed that across the OCS South contract, since 1 March, the company has only delivered 66% of their contracted cover. We suspect that much of this cover was provided with agency staff, rather than the permanent staff stipulated in the contract.
• The company has failed to supply the cover required under the contract notwithstanding the 60 day exemption from vetting standards given (inappropriately in our view) to the company to help it recruit staff of sufficient calibre to pass the necessary security standards. We would not find it acceptable for HMPPS to lower the vetting and security industry authority registration for OCS staff, if this is something you were tempted to do in order to make life easier for OCS. They signed a contract which requires SIA accreditation and in the absence of any vetting standards being in place at present, this accreditation is the only provision standing in the way of completely unsuitable individuals being placed in APs by the company. We are also disturbed to learn that one of the reasons you may be considering removing the SIA licence requirements is to allow NPS staff to apply to become sessional staff for OCS. If there is any truth to this it is an utter and total travesty.
• OCS has allegedly told NPS that it is struggling to recruit staff in relation to the high risk nature of the work in APs. At one AP, an OCS employee turned up, but left very quickly when the nature of the resident group was explained. Perhaps the low pay the company is offering for a 48 hour working week is a factor here; we did point this out to you prior to the contracts going live.
• Our members have been left in very dangerous situations when OCS members of staff failed to turn up and our members were forced to work additional hours at the end of a 12 hour shift. This is unacceptable and must stop now.
• The shifts which OCS have been unable to cover have apparently been covered by a mixture of NPS sessional and agency staff. We ask that you confirm this to us in writing and in particular the proportion of shifts which HMPPS is having to pay to cover. In some cases, when the OCS member of staff has not turned up, the NPS has had to employ a sessional worker at additional cost to cover the shift; so HMPPS is presumably paying twice for the same cover.
• OCS staff have no access to HMPPS systems, so are unable to undertake any of the risk assessment work that is essential to the operation of an AP.

North Contract: Sodexo

The same problems with private contract staff not turning up for shifts as required are being experienced on the Sodexo contract. Here is some testimony from some UNISON representatives in different APs in the North East Division:

‘I can give some basic feedback relating to staff not turning up for arranged shifts and NPS staff being left in the building long after their shifts have finished until alternative cover is arranged. Unfortunately this happens regularly at (Name of AP) and recently there was a period whereby it became the norm for staff to wonder if someone was arriving at 8pm to take them off, and often no one would come. When staff have rung the company they have said someone is on their way and on a few occasions when AP staff contacted the individual who was due on shift themselves, the person was waiting at home for someone to pick him up and bring him to work (arranged by the private company themselves) and he was still waiting for said lift after 8.30pm thereby meaning the NPS RW had to stay on the premises for 2 hours after their shift ended by the time someone arrived to take them off.

Only last Friday we received a call from the private company at 5pm saying that they could not provide a member of staff that night and my understanding is that the on call manager had to come into work and complete the shift themselves due to no other provision being provided.’

‘The contractors seem to have a casual attitude to punctuality. By and large they have no training and some of them are agency workers who are in the process of earning cash to fund other things like education etc. Quite a few of them work on other projects on their down time, and are breaking every working time directive there is. Because of the failings of our privatised DWNC, if colleagues are off sick, we do not know if they are going to be relieved by the contractors, or not at all. Last weekend we had the on call manager here for a night shift because Sodexo did not show.’

• There appears to be confusion in the North Contract as to what Sodexo residential assistants can and can’t do on the contract. In the North West Division, the Sodexo staff are doing most AP duties and have log in access to HMPPS intranet systems, whereas in North East Division, management has produced a detailed schedule setting out what the private residential assistants can and can’t do. How can this disparity exist in relation to the contract which Sodexo signed?
• The unions have placed on record a notice of serious and imminent danger to persons at work/in residence at the NPS undertakings that comprise approved premises in the North West Division as a result of:
• a Two agency workers working together at any one time at an approved premises
• b An agency worker working with a private residential assistant at any one time in an approved premises
• In order for the NPS to comply with the Approved Premises Manual HMPPS must ensure that: ‘Under all arrangements, at least one member of staff on duty during daytime hours must be a keyworker or Offender Supervisor, and at least one in the evening and at weekends must be employed by the Probation Trust or Independent Management Committee and will be responsible for liaising with the duty manager in dealing with any immediate risks. Staff for night duty must not be drawn solely from private security firms.’
• This means that HMPPS is in breach of the AP Handbook if you continue to allow the staffing arrangements set out at a. and b. above, and also in breach of the Health and Safety Management Regulations.
• NPS North West Division has tried to excuse the unauthorised use of two agency workers together on the same shift at an AP on the pretext that NPS has serious staff shortages in Approved Premises. This is no surprise, as NPS down-graded the AP residential worker role as a cost cutting measure! Rather than using expensive agency staff, the unions are calling for the residential worker job description to be re-evaluated.
• Here is a description of the reported experience of one Sodexo employee in the North West Division: (Name) was sent to the AP by Sodexo to do a night shadow shift last night. He informed NPS staff that he received a telephone call at 3pm yesterday, he was doing a day shift somewhere else, and he was instructed to be at the AP for 8pm to do a night shadow shift at (Name of AP) and if he didn’t do it the job would be given to someone else. Therefore, despite being up at work all day, he came and was up all night as well.

(Name) told NPS staff that, last night was his shadow shift, then he takes up permanent post and will do a further 4 night shifts starting tonight and he is now the new night security employee. He was informed that the job he applied for entails watching cameras and patrolling a building.

(Name) has now gone home to go to bed and will return for a further shift tonight and the next 3 nights after. NPS staff member said that somebody a male, who he suspects is quite high up at Sodexo rang up the AP in the middle of the night to see how things were going with (Name). NPS employee said he passed the phone to (Name) and he had a conversation with the caller. (Name) later informed us this morning that he didn't even know he was working for Sodexo until he received the phone call, as there was a different name on his time sheet, so he thought he was working for the company named on the time sheet.

Not surprisingly all of the above incidents have left our AP members feeling extremely vulnerable and angry at the failure of NPS to exercise its duty of care towards them, their residents and the communities which the APs serve. Our members are professionals who take their duties extremely seriously, and simply cannot understand why you have entered into a contract which has exposed them and their residents to danger and stress.

We will continue to monitor these contracts to ensure that you are complying with your legal duties as the employer and to expose on-going contract failures. We will also continue to campaign for these contracts to be returned as quickly as possible to the public sector.

When we expressed our concerns over this privatisation to the previous probation minister, Sam Gyimah, we were told that we were being ideological in our opposition. In reality it is your Department which has pursued an ideological commitment to privatise double waking night cover in approved premises against all the advice and entreaties from the staff who work in hostels. It is these staff, our members, who are picking up the pieces of your failed and failing initiative at the sharp end, and they are very angry.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Lawrence

Ben Priestley

We have also written in similar terms to Sonia Crozier following her assurances as prefaced below about the DWNC contract.

‘As you know, the contract is now up and running. The providers have been providing consistent cover across the AP estate. We will continue to work with you during the implementation period and will seek to address any further concerns you may have.’

No I am not convinced either

Wednesdays Vigil for Justice

All that can get across to the MoJ HQ on Wednesday are welcome. Here are the details again: Meet outside the MoJ 102 Petty France Street Westminster 6:30 for 7:00. More news including some encouraging contact with members and the local Police and Crime Commissioners in the West Midlands in the next Blog post.

Reform Has The Answer

Those with long memories of C-Nomis and the wasted £234million might find the following naively-gushing endorsement of the digital age by Reform generates more than a wry smile:-   

To cut reoffending, give prisons better information about their inmates

Only then will more rehabilitation take place

When it comes to protecting the public, information matters. In the decade to 2015, 505 prisoners were released from prison in error. One prisoner, Martynas Kupstys, was on remand but later convicted of murder in 2015. In another case, a prisoner was released after a mix-up with another inmate with the same surname.

These are extreme examples of how poor information can undermine prisons’ ability to keep the public safe. According to Ian Mulholland, former Director of Public Sector Prisons at the National Offender Management Service, “very often prison governors know almost nothing of the person remanded in custody.”

This month, David Gauke, Secretary of State for Justice, called for prisons to be “a route to a better life” through rehabilitation. The government estimates reoffending to cost the economy £15bn a year. Better information could help prisons and probation services, which work to integrate prisoners back in to society after custody, reduce this.

The first step is to understand offenders’ needs. Prisoners often face complex social, health and educational challenges which affect behaviour. According to Reform think tank research, prisoners are 130 times more likely to receive treatment for drug or alcohol abuse than the public, 3.5 times more likely to have a learning disability and 1.5 times more likely to suffer from mental ill health.

Access to information can enable prisons and probation services to tailor rehabilitation services to different offenders. For example, a rehabilitation pilot in Peterborough in 2010 used data to identify patterns that led to reoffending. For one offender, who had been imprisoned 150 times and displayed anti-social behaviour on the anniversary of his wife’s death, increased support around that date helped keep him out of prison. The pilot drew on 10 different services, such as employment services, mental health services and behavioural change support, to offer tailored rehabilitation.

Not only should this information be “relevant and recent,” in the words of Russ Trent, Governor of HMP Berwyn, but also easily accessible. Today, this means digital. As Katy Bourne, Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex, argued last year: “We all depend on 21st century digital technology to communicate, shop and conduct everyday business, so why does the criminal justice system appear to be stuck in the 19th century?”

A new IT framework, with easy but secure access to relevant and recent information, could provide this, according to research by Reform. Elsewhere in the criminal justice system, the Crown Prosecution Service is working with police forces, the courts and judiciary to build a “Common Platform,” which includes a digital case-file system through which information and evidence is shared. The government could extend the information sharing element to prisons to provide governors with a better understanding of the needs of prisoners.

Basic information could help avoid the types of mistakes that have led to prisoners being released in error. Digital databases can be tied to research and evidence as to what works for reducing reoffending, enabling prison staff to link best practice to the characteristics of prisoners. In healthcare, IBM’s Watson, which can read 40m medical documents in 15 seconds and provide up-to-date medical knowledge to practitioners, offers a model that prisons could follow.

This would be a radically different prison environment. It would be one well-placed to meet Gauke’s aims to rehabilitate offenders. This could reduce the reoffending bill, but, most importantly, help protect the public from crime. Yesterday’s poor data sharing could be replaced by tomorrow’s rehabilitation revolution.

Reform’s Report, Crime and information: using data and technology to transform criminal-justice services, is available at www.reform.uk

Pick of the Week 30

I’m 30+ years in and now meet up with my friends who were made redundant or decided they’d had enough working for MTCnovo in London. Most are are so glad they got out and are either retired or working for decent employers they are not ashamed to say they are working for. I feel a lot of anger at the Tories that all these great colleagues no longer work in Probation and left in disgust and disappointment with a wealth of experience. They keep saying to me that I should leave because everyday I have to drag myself in to an office I now hate working in to work for a toxic company that cares about nothing but profit. Recently I worked out when I could retire. The fact is I want to leave as I can no longer think of any good reason why a sane person would waste their life working for such a bunch of cowboy profiteers unless you want to sell your soul.

*****
Dinosaurs still exist in many institutions, social services, the NHS, prisons, probation, local councils are just a few. The real value of the dinosaur however, is that they worked along the seams of society. They helped people sew the cuff to the sleeve, the sleeves to the jacket or the lapels to the collar. They had the ability to cross borders. Not very far, but enough to get a hook in. No one works along the seams anymore, they're not allowed to. Everything is compartmentalised, it's own little independent state. So people now just roll from one crisis ridden sector to another be it prisons, NHS, probation, housing or anywhere else. Society needs those that work along the seams. 

I'm minded that today the Tories, Labour and everyone else is coming together in Parliament, not because they have a sexual harassment crisis, not because they have an abuse of power crisis, they're just the components that make a 'Westminster' crisis. Maybe it's time they afforded the rest of us that courtesy. It's not a prison crisis. It's not an NHS crisis. It's not a housing crisis or any other compartmentalised crisis. IT'S A SOCIETY CRISIS. And I lay the fault at the feet of this Tory Government.

*****
I'm a PSO/CM dinosaur working within Interserve CGM and at the end of my tether. I really feel that I can't cope much longer after 19yrs service but because I've been used to a half decent salary, are now struggling to find any sort of equivalent that will maintain a roof over my head! So sick of the shit that gets constantly emailed from the powers that be with regards targets and working with integrity - this involves ensuring that we put everyone into groups with no mention of building effective relationships. CM's are also being made to run DV groups with 2 days training (not yet BBR) but with medium risk completing IRSC - no thought to victims me thinks! But hey why would they give a shit when they continue to tick boxes and reap the benefits thrown to them by this Government - including Interserves new contracts.

*****
...and so, London Inspection in boroughs are now complete. Inspectors on a two week rest until they move into Head Office for two weeks. Would love to be a fly on the wall. Still, senior management now have two weeks to prepare...or manipulate evidence, data. 

Amusing that during this period, us front line staff were denied any Annual Leave. Yet, our ACO commenced A/L the day after inspectors turned up at one of their boroughs/office. An office that has not had a SPO for approaching 10 weeks now. It’s ok though. We have had SPO oversight, for all of one 2 hour visit during that time. It all worked out well though. Lead inspector was allocated. A chance to off load just what we face, deal with, daily. Sadly not. Their 4 day stay lasted half a day. Inspection interviews conducted over the phone. Inspector hadn’t even looked at Delius, OASys prior to calls. Baffling.

It transpires that we have also been served eviction from our office. Not that CRC staff have been informed. That would be communicating important news to staff and showing some respect. NPS colleagues preparing to move location in January kindly shared this news. Why should we be informed anyway? We are just box tickers on the front line after all.

So, since the inspection ‘preparation’ commenced, we have been manager-less, no real support offered, left to it, while it seems being evicted from our place of work. Which is fine. We have a laptop. A wi-fi box. We can hold meetings in Costa I suppose. Never a boring day in CRC hey...?

*****
Today, sandwiched between my commutes, listening to radio news of corruption, greed and abuse by the powerful, a man who has NOTHING came to his probation appointment and returned the money we had given him up front for his bus fare, as someone had given him a lift. I felt like weeping.

*****
A never ending cycle of hopelessness. Service users NFA. You prepare letters for them to provide to your local housing service, detailing risk, their circumstance, requesting advice and support. They get turned away. Told to go back to Probation. Probation can refer you to another service. You complete the form. Refer. Reduce anxiety of Service User. Arrange an appointment for help. They attend. Service provider don’t. Buck then stops with you to manage and contain emotions, risk, anger. Still...there is always ‘Plan, Meet, Record’. Sad. Frustrating. What can we do?

*****
They gather with glasses of bubbles & exotic canapes, slapping each other on the back, laughing & joking, oh so pleased with themselves. It just proves that nothing will change. Where's the motivation? The excruciating irony is that probation work is underpinned by motivational change... so it's time to recognise that the usual suspects are nowhere near contemplation phase. They're very comfortable, secure & content in their world - reminiscent of the 'career criminals' on your caseloads: the recidivist 'professional' burglars who are financially secure, the DV perps who maintain control, the sex offenders who are in denial. They don't care about caseloads, probation staff or victims of crime. Invisible Lidington has done nothing since his appointment. Where's the outcry? I'd wager my offshore savings that the Napo GenSec was there...

*****

Actually there are also some decent people on that list such as Professors McNeill and Craissati and Mark Johnson whose organisation User Voice was royally shafted by MTCnovo along with the entire service user engagement initiative. So while there may be those who hitched their horse on Graylings wagon, there are also those who are very critical of TR and would like the government to take things in a different direction. What we should be doing is organising to attend such events so that the right questions are asked and the rational voices are supported.

*****

... but everyone knows what questions need to be asked; everyone knew where TR was taking us; and all those in positions to implement change are fully aware of the state of play. They just won't change anything because it doesn't suit them or their agenda. They aren't hungry, cold, homeless... and they're not prepared to risk their well-paid high-flying careers for the sake of a handful of pissed-off probation workers, or those convicted of criminal offences. That's why I believe nothing will change. The die is cast. It's been four years since the shafting exercise, nearly three and a half since CRCs were implemented, about three years since the contracts were awarded - what has changed for the better? Nothing.

People have been shouting from the rooftops, writing to MPs, writing to the media, this blog has been constant, even HMI Probation has politely had a word,... Nothing! The JSC have asked for evidence to inform their review. I doubt many of those most deeply affected by the whole TR shitstorm will submit anything either because they know nothing about it or because they dare not risk their jobs. 

Sorry to be so negative but recent events have made it plain to me that unless you're 'in their club' they regard you & your life with utter contempt and just do whatever suits them - Priti Patel; Boris Johnson; Brexshit; Trump; May; sexual predators; the Paradise Papers; its an endless stream of 'us & them' - we can but you can't; we have and you don't have.

*****

The Parole Board plays an important role in the CJS, especially in relation to IPPs. IPP was a cruel sentence, a political disaster, and in many cases imposed by different interpretation of sentencing guidelines. It's now defunct, and rightly so in my opinion. However, the narrative is always about releasing IPPs from custody, dealing with the backlog. But shouldn't there be more? It's not enough to talk about getting people out of custody, people need to be taken out if the Criminal Justice System itself.

Making someone once released subject to a life long licence is just keeping them part of the CJS, at risk of recall and subject to whatever changes may occur within the CJS during that licence period that the individual has no control over, but may be impacted adversely by. There is no point, or justification, for imposing a universal period of licence on those released from an IPP sentence. Just the vast array of offences that have attracted an IPP sentence, and the huge differences in tariffs imposed demonstrates how much difference there is within the IPP population. The focus needs to be more orientated on getting people to exit the CJS, not just exiting custody.

I don't see why the licence period for IPPs can't be correlated more to tariff, and become more reflective of the individual, than an all inclusive universal licence based solely on a defunct and highly political sentencing guideline. Everyone needs to think bigger, moving people out of custody is just a step in the right direction but moving people out of the CJS altogether should be the real goal.

*****
The madness of LondonCRC. A ‘low’ risk first time offender allocated to an experienced PO. A ‘medium’ risk - but high profile offender (media known for previous manslaughter) allocated to a inexperienced PSO. I have no words.

*****
The 'nub of it' is the fact that TR is based on the premise that substantial profit can be squeezed out of trying to assist people to make positive changes to their lives; or put another way, cashing in on others' misfortune and misery.

*****
Lest we forget... The 'nub of it' might also be that a politically-driven ideology was imposed upon a public service with indecent haste, filling opportunists' pockets with eye-watering sums of public money & ending the careers of hundreds of skilled, experienced professionals. Yes, we have to find a way forward. No, we should not let those responsible for the TR debacle off the hook.

*****
MTCnovo are spending £1m plus a week trying to fix IT. Staff have the IT helpline on speed dial often relying on their personal phones to communicate. At their HQ in Elephant & Castle MTCnovo they have cleared away desks and installed huge shelves where dead and dying IT equipment is displayed in the middle of a desperate operation to try to address the huge headache of keeping some equipment functioning. The fact managers are occasionally inconvenienced seems to mean they are prioritised whereas those who might lose their job due to missed deadlines have to wait. If you work at one of the so called ‘stranded sites’ you are done for. The attrition rates are enormous.

The other day they were sending out literally thousands of letters to reinstruct UPW clients that should have been doing their sentence with staff posted at the door to act as lookouts for the inspectorate.

*****
Inspections are good. Reports that publish the performance of CRCs are good. But they can just become an endless stream of inspections and bad reports if there's no sanction for failure to improve. How many inspections have produced dismal reports across the prison estate over the last few years? Prisons just get worse.

The heads of these private companies should have to operate similar to the way they dictate their clients have to. Behave the way you're supposed to, comply with the conditions imposed on you, or face penalty. I'm not a fan of that approach, but if it's the model used on their clients or service users, then it should be a model that the service providers were also subjected to.

*****
"However, magistrates have no contact with community rehabilitation companies." Most of those who appear before the magistrates will almost certainly end up being supervised by CRCs, whether by community sentence or on licence from a short custodial sentence. It's shocking that there's no contact, interchange or dialogue between the sentencer and the agencies responsible for community rehabilitation activities and supervision.

*****
Yes still the inspector mentions more money for CRC - NO NO NO NO NO that means more profit for private companies. They will not move away from targets by simple metrics achievements on the cheap Call centres appalling. Stop that nonsense please. It is time to phase out the CRC as a miserable example of what not to do ever again.

*****
Having been an Offender Manager for over 15 years and throughout this time, I have continued to write PSRs. If I could avoid using both NDelius and Oasys and instead use applications that were fit for purpose, streamlined and efficient and avoided the constant need to duplicate duplicate duplicate, I could reverse the 80/20 in the time I spend completing computer related tasks and then allow me to intercede with the offenders I am asked to manage and perhaps build a relationship with them that will facilitate them engendering long term behavioural change. As it is, I have no time to see offenders and NPS IT takes virtually all my time. It’s shameful.

As for PSRs, staff are not allowed to do a thorough interview and assessment, let alone write a detailed report that will inform fully, risk management and rehabilitation objectives. Gone is the professionally recognised document, replaced by a document that serves very little effective purpose.

As staff, we do what our employer tells us to do, in a way they tell us to do it, using tools they provide. Clearly, those in charge need to be removed and allow effective practitioners to design a Service that is fit for the 21st century. Until this happens, Government and Probation NPS decision makers, and likely CRCs will continue to frustrate the purposes of both organisations, which is to protect the public and allow for effective relationships to be formed to bring about change for those we supervise.

*****
Somewhere I have seen an invitation from the chief inspector to contribute to consultation on planned changes to inspection. I want to contribute; I haven't quite formulated my thoughts yet: my observation is this: The CRCs are motivated entirely by profit, and the NPS entirely by ticking inspection boxes. HMIP are doing a good job exposing the deficiencies of the CRC's. Less so in the NPS, and this is because NPS is driven entirely by a mission to get good inspections. HMIP are in a comfort zone where a) the absolutely dire situation in CRCs is plain to see and evidence b) there is an inadvertent collusion between NPS and HMIP where one rewards the other at the expense of all the stuff that is hard to measure. Targets and Inspections should be a yardstick of health, informing the business, not The Business.

Inspectors and managers make frequent reference to "engagement", the crucial importance of "supervisory relationships" etc. But it is hard to measure and quantify...so, a useful weathervane or yardstick would be to record the proportion of time spent in face-to face contact between staff and their clients. I think it might be a - very healthy - source of discomfort to both management and practitioners to have a look at this.

*****
"aspects of the model have become unaffordable due to lower than anticipated caseloads." I still struggle with this, and it was something that struck me as being odd when probation provision was first talked about in the context of private sector delivery. Surely the success of a private company is measured by its growth? Taking a contract to reduce reoffending must mean that profits is dependent on shrinkage. If CRCs had originally had the numbers they thought they would, hit the ground running from day one with a perfect model of delivery, and were successful at reducing reoffending, then they're always going to have less and less numbers coming through the door. I really don't understand how a private company primarily concerned with profit can find itself anywhere else but in trouble, when the objective of the contract is to shrink its own markets. I really don't get it.

*****
"Beyond improving the performance of both prisons and probation services, we are co-operating more effectively with important bodies that have contact with offenders." Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Prisons are dangerously understaffed, probation has been wrecked while health, housing & social services are on their knees. How & why do they tell such blatant lies? Why does the 'star-studded turnout' collude? How & why do they get away with it, remain in office & continue to be paid from public funds?

*****
FAO David 'Invisible' Lidington. Hmmm, let us think rationally about this Dave. To summarise:

1. Your predecessor in a Tory-led coalition imposed the ill-thought out TR project.
2. Your Tory colleagues gave overseas private companies a massive wedge of UK public funds specifically for the purpose of making UK employees redundant.
3. The overseas private companies kept the money, with your Government's blessing, and made the promised swingeing cuts to staff - but didn't pass on the full amounts due. Your Government's agents, i.e. NOMS, felt that was acceptable practice.
4. Shortly afterwards the overseas private companies cried "Foul!" when they weren't getting the returns they had gambled on & you gave them even more UK public money to keep them sweet.
5. Hundreds of staff were made unemployed, the service to those on Probation or Licence is collapsing, morale & professional standards have plummeted, CRCs are manipulating statistics...
6... and you have the brass neck to stand before "a star-studded turnout" to claim you are "improving the performance".

You, sir, are an offensive parasite feeding off the public purse. Not yet in the league of Boris Johnson, Chris Grayling, Priti Patel, Michael Gove or David Davis - but certainly on a par with Elizabeth Truss.

*****
I was working in a Gold medal service before Grayling, Clegg et al wrecked it on the back of an untested ideology.... but now I am instructed to hand over lots more public cash in the form of the Rate Card which my manager sees as 'vitally important' to the work of the NPS...at £2,500 a throw just for a start on a programme with little support once they get on one which is likely to be run by a PSO with a days training using (No offence to PSO's it's not you it's the system)....managers are now managing by absolute fear...fear of upsetting the hierarchy - fear of saying 'this is shit'...it's worse than Lions being led by donkeys...it's turkeys voting for Christmas..it's no surprise that all the great maverick managers of yesteryear are now just memories in the probation collective consciousness (apologies if you are one of those increasingly rare breeds and more power to you)..

*****
At those kind of rates the NPS would be better served by taking programme intervention back in-house. Quality and Programme Integrity could then be maintained. Choice in the market place for so called Criminal Justice Services is not much of a choice when it's a choice between Crappy Basic, Crappy Standard Plus or Crappy Deluxe.

*****
The releases of IPPs is up to 46%, up from 28% five years ago. Although Liddington praises the forensic skills of those doing the releasing, it's not 'forensics' but 'justice' that has powered this increase. And it just goes to show how risk assessments are more about politics than science or human rights.

*****
Working Links are now selling RAR packages to NPS. What a joke! A solitary PSO delivering courses from crappy premises in breach of health and safety standards. Programmes teams being told to 'prioritise NPS offenders'.Why? Because it pays! CRC OM's struggling with caseloads between 55 to 100 and desperate for any help they can get but no chance as priority is NPS. What a fucking joke! NPS would be better off approaching CRC staff to work for them and do the job in-house from suitable premises. Let's face it, they are desperate to get out of the shit house that Working Links have reduced them to.

*****
Everyone knows that this post-release supervision is empty of content. As Liddington was obliged to admit, through-the-gate is not performing as expected – another inspired 'revolving door' for those who are most disadvantaged, who must be punished with fines, etc, if they fail to comply with a largely non-existent service. Just as those who fail to comply are punished, so the probation service is blamed and told it must make a better fist of TTG – which has never risen above the status of a £46-in-your-pocket soundbite. Now the courts are in on the charade, fining a homeless and mentally-ill man, as though he had been given every opportunity to mend his ways. The system gets cruder by the day.

Inspection Consultation Launched

Some important speeches were made at Monday's Parole Board celebratory bash and to kick things off, here we have that given by Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation and in the process launching a consultation on standards and ratings:-

Next steps in probation reform in England and Wales 

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about a subject so dear to my heart and so pertinent: can probation services deliver what we all want and expect? The short answer is yes, given the right conditions, but they cannot do it alone, or without sufficient funding. 

Many people aren’t sure about probation, and what it actually does, what to want or expect from probation services, yet youth offending and probation services can make a big difference to those receiving them and to wider society. More than a quarter of a million people are supervised by them each year, and numbers are rising. If all these services were delivered well, then the prison population would reduce. There would be less reoffending and fewer people being returned repeatedly to prison. Yes – but there would also be fewer people living on the streets, and fewer confused and lonely children, with a smaller number taken into care. Men, women and children currently afraid of assault could lead happier, safer lives. 

We are not talking about small beer here. Instead, these things matter to us all. They are the things we should want and expect from probation services, in my view. 

To meet those expectations, probation services must protect the public from risky individuals, make sure people sentenced to a community sentence serve their sentences, and work with all those under probation supervision to reduce their reoffending. These things are inextricably linked in the minds of probation professionals. They are the enduring requirements of all probation services, their raison d'être. 

And with Transforming Rehabilitation came new expectations: that the voluntary sector would play a key role in delivering probation services, and that providers would innovate, and find new ways to rehabilitate offenders. National probation standards had increasingly given way to the use of professional judgement, a trend that allowed for the innovation government wished to promote. Probation supervision was extended for the first time to offenders released from prison sentences of under twelve months (over 40,000 people each year). And CRCs must now provide offenders with resettlement services while they are in prison, in anticipation of their release. 

You have heard already, from earlier guests that probation is not working as well as it should; that we, the public cannot be sure that good quality probation services are consistently well delivered at the moment. I do not want to dwell on the shortcomings in the short time I have with you, but let me sum up what we in HMI Probation see. The National Probation Service (‘NPS’) is off to a good start overall, whereas most Community Rehabilitation Companies (‘CRCs’) are struggling. There have been serious setbacks. The new IT systems so central to most CRCs’ transformation plans are still not fully in place and for all, unanticipated changes in sentencing and the nature of work coming to CRCs have seriously affected profitability and the bottom line. All CRCs have reduced staff numbers, some to a worrying extent, and many CRCs are not providing the range of specialist services necessary to make a difference for people with particular problems. When staff are so hard pressed, and have limited access to specialist services, we find there is too little purposeful activity in too many CRC cases. That is the nub of it: too little meaningful work, overall. 

We should all be concerned, given the rehabilitation opportunities missed, and the risks to the public if individuals are not supervised well. So what is to be done about it? What are the next steps? 

I have found government appreciative of our inspection reports, findings and evidence. We heard from Jim earlier that the Secretary of State for Justice is considering future strategy and plans for probation services, and I hope that our reports continue to be of value to him and others involved as they consider probation service provision not just now, but for the next decade. I hope what I say now will be of value as well – six top tips for ministers to consider as they develop probation services for the future, before I end by speaking about the contribution HMI Probation can make: 

1. Firstly, operating models matter. The way an individual organisation sets itself up to deliver probation services makes a difference to how effective probation services are likely to be. Some have laudable features. Some aspire to deliver services in community hubs that also provide wider services to the local community, for example, and all seek to eradicate unnecessary overheads and reduce the cost of necessary ones, so as to provide best value. 

But those owners of CRCs most ambitious to remodel services have found probation difficult to reconfigure, or re-engineer. As it is, I question whether some CRC operating models can deliver sufficiently effective probation services. So for example in some CRCs, individuals meet with their probation officer in open booths that do not provide enough privacy, when sensitive and difficult conversations must take place. Operating models should provide for and build on those features of probation services that we know, from evidence, and more likely to engender reflection and change in those individuals subject to probation. 

2. The quality of the relationships is key. There is a strong evidence base to show the quality of the relationship between an individual and his probation officer is paramount. Yet in some CRCs, cases are transferred between probation workers routinely. And some people now under probation supervision do not meet with their probation officer face-to-face. Instead they are supervised by telephone calls every six weeks or so, with some CRCs planning for biometric monitoring systems. 

3. IT systems and IT connectivity matter. They deserve attention. Probation is a caring service, with so much resting on relationships with local partners as well as with those under probation supervision, but it needs good enough systems to deliver effectively. 

I have been delighted to see CRC owners investing in new IT to support offender management. I have then seem them wrestle with government data protection and other system requirements and find themselves wrong footed, as the essential IT connectivity to other criminal justice systems is still not available. Things are no better in the NPS. It still relies heavily on dated, creaky IT systems that lack functionality and are in some cases unreliable. There have been some piecemeal system developments, but more strategic investment could enable NPS managers and staff to work more efficiently and effectively, and stop some individual cases slipping through the net. 

4. Skilled, professional staff matter. All too often we are seeing CRC staff overburdened with work, and unable to deliver well. Of course the world responds to incentives, the world over, and we would see more professional staff more able to do a good job if providers were incentivised differently. 

5. Commissioning in this field is difficult. Difficult, because you are in effect commissioning the resolution of complex social problems that are best solved locally and in partnership with others. Difficult, because delivering probation services is more challenging than it appears, particularly in prisons and in rural areas. 

Difficult, because the enduring aims of probation – to protect the public from risky individuals, make sure people sentenced to a community sentence serve their sentences, and work with all those under probation supervision to reduce their reoffending - are so inextricably linked. They are not readily divisible into discrete work packages and measures. Difficult because sentencing does not stand still. 

And difficult because risk assessment is not an exact science and in any event, risk changes as people’s circumstances change. Individuals assessed originally as presenting a medium or low risk to the public can go on to commit very serious further offences.

Reducing all this to a set of contractual requirements and performance measures in a meaningful way most likely to deliver quality services is just plain difficult. 

6. A guiding coalition is needed, at the top. Probation providers cannot magic up accommodation for former offenders, or instant universal benefit payments, or ensure that women’s centres thrive, or that local authorities approve planning applications for much needed new Approved Premises, for example. Probation services cannot do it alone.

Instead, effective probation services require the combined efforts of providers, professionals and staff, commissioners and funders, local partners and inspectors, informed by listening to those receiving the service and inspired by one single view, championed across government – a single vision of what we want and expect to do for a quarter of a million people each year, some of the most troubled and troubling people in society today.

Inspection can help. Inspection of any public service should focus on its conformity to standards; the quality of service it delivers and the quality of its management arrangements. By shining a light on these things, inspection provides those carrying political or executive responsibility, as well as the general public with an independent way of holding agencies to account and testing whether the services they offer are being delivered appropriately. What’s more, inspection can drive up quality in the criminal justice system. Done well, it shines a light, holds people to account and – critically - it should improve services, over time. 

I mention standards, but of course, standards in probation have waxed and waned in recent years. With Transforming Rehabilitation, probation providers were freed up to a large extent from established standards, and encouraged to innovate and find new ways of rehabilitating offenders. 

Where there are no clear, agreed, published standards to show what good quality work looks like, then inspecting is less effective than it can be. Those inspected are not always sure what is expected of them, how their service might be judged, and how and where to focus so as to improve. That is a hole we at HMI Probation want to fill. 

We can produce inspection standards, to show what we are looking for when we inspect. But for standards to do more - to drive improvement in services – then they should be built by consensus. Inspection alone cannot improve quality. Instead it requires the commitment of providers and others, all working towards a single vision of high-quality probation services. It is that single view, single vision that is so important for us all. 

It is essential then that those who will be inspected against standards are involved in their development. We have been working with the NPS, CRCs and others in workshops across England and Wales to develop and refine a new set of standards for probation services delivered by the NPS and CRCs. We think we have a good set of draft standards as a result, and now we want to see if others agree. We will launch a formal consultation on them tomorrow, and I hope you will all participate – please. 

You will see incidentally that our proposed standards cover the management arrangements of the organisations we inspect, in line with good inspection practice and the approach of inspectors in other spheres. 

We are proposing to use these standards as from April next year. As we do so, we intend to make another significant change, designed to drive improvement in services where it is needed. We intend to rate each NPS division and CRC that we inspect, using a four point scale: Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement, Inadequate. We have seen that approach work and drive improvements in other services, and expect it to do the same here, over time. 

Of course, CRCs are measured on contract compliance, and indeed all the organisations we inspect are measured in various ways. But we think HMI Probation ratings will provide a prime measure of the quality of probation services, when this is very much needed.

Probation services are not yet stable. To provide the accountability and visibility necessary and to drive improvement where it is needed, we will inspect every NPS division and ever CRC annually, starting in spring 2018. 

Let me end now with a few closing remarks, or reminders: 

1. Probation services should be designed in ways that are most likely to engage those under probation supervision. 

2. Looking at things from the point of view of those under probation supervision, informed by the research and evidence base of good probation practice, is a sensible thing to do. 

3. Probation arrangements, the way it is delivered should promote and encourage partnership at the local level. Probation cannot do it alone. Instead, not just local partnership but a national coalition is needed. 

4. IT matters. We are not in a good place, and yet so much could be achieved with better systems. 

5. And last but not least, the way probation providers are overseen and regulated should be proportionate and coherent, and likely to drive improvement where needed. Independent inspection has a key role to play. 

Thank you for listening.

Dame Glenys Stacey 

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Dame Glenys has this to add in her guest blog blog for Russell Webster today:-

What difference does inspection make?

We at HMI Probation have been thinking for a while about why and how we inspect. That may sound a bit odd, but it is not quite as daft as it sounds.

To inspect is to examine closely or to inquire carefully. Over time, an agreed view of what good inspection should achieve has developed. I first saw it set out in a paper in the Modern Law Review: inspection of any public service should focus on its conformity to standards; the quality of service it delivers and the quality of its management arrangements. The author, Professor Stephen Shute also argued that it should cover the organisation’s efficiency and value for money, but today I want to focus on the first three requirements.

Shining a light

Professor Shute argued that by shining a light on these things, inspection provides those carrying political or executive responsibility, as well as the general public with an independent way of holding agencies to account and testing whether the services they offer are being delivered appropriately. He also argued that inspection can drive up quality in the criminal justice system. Done well, it shines a light, holds people to account and – critically – it should improve services, over time.

Most rational people would agree that inspection should show whether the body being inspected is conforming to standards, but of course, standards in probation have waxed and waned in recent years. With Transforming Rehabilitation, probation providers were freed up to a large extent from established standards, and encouraged to innovate and find new ways of rehabilitating offenders.

Inspection can drive improvement

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the new found freedoms are not yet working as intended, but that is not my focus today. Instead I am speaking of inspection, good inspection. Where there are no clear, agreed, published standards to show what good quality work looks like, then inspecting is less effective than it can be. Those inspected are not always sure what is expected of them, how their service might be judged, and how and where to focus so as to improve. That is a hole we want to fill.

As HMI Probation, we can produce inspection standards, to show what we are looking for when we inspect. But for standards to do more – to drive improvement in services – then they should be built by consensus. Inspection alone cannot improve quality. Instead it requires the combined efforts of providers, professionals and staff, commissioners and funders, and inspectors, all working towards a single vision of high-quality probation services, informed by listening to those receiving those services. It is that single view, single vision that is so important for us all.

It is essential then that those who will be inspected against standards are involved in their development. We have been working with the NPS, CRCs and others in workshops across England and Wales to develop and refine a new set of standards for probation services delivered by the NPS and CRCs. We think we have a good set of draft standards as a result, and now we want to see if others agree.

Share your views

We have been doing similar thinking about our inspections of Youth Offending Teams. Again, we have been running workshops with YOT staff and others to discuss and develop a common view of standards. We now feel ready to air our proposed standards for youth offending and probation services, in two consultations we are launching today. You will see incidentally that our proposed standards cover the management arrangements of the organisations we inspect, in line with Professor Shute views and the approach of inspectors in other spheres.

We are proposing to use these standards as from April next year. As we do so, we intend to make another significant change, designed to drive improvement in services where it is needed. We intend to rate each youth offending team, NPS division and CRC that we inspect, using a four point scale: Outstanding, Good, Requiring Improvement and Inadequate. We have seen that approach work and drive improvements in other services, and expect it to do the same here, over time.

Of course, CRCs are measured on contract compliance, and indeed all the organisations we inspect are measured in various ways. But we think HMI Probation ratings will provide a prime measure of the quality of probation services, when this is very much needed.

Our consultations run until 8 December. I hope you will find the time to take a look, and to give us your views. I suggest you read the consultation document first before giving your views.

Click here for the consultation document on probation standards
Click here for the consultation document on YOT standards

Dame Glenys Stacey