The Voluntary Sector in TR2 (2)

The concluding part of the recently published position paper from the Probation Institute:-

5. What does the Voluntary and Community Sector do in Criminal Justice? 

Many of the VCS organisations working in the criminal justice system in England and Wales today have their roots in 19th century philanthropic and often religious organisations. Their histories were significantly influenced by the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834 which facilitated charitable poverty relief. Following the founding of the Welfare State in 1948 an understanding emerged that philanthropy had a continuing major role to play in post war society. By the late 1970s massive changes in populations and lifestyles resulted in new charitable organisations and in many of the traditional charities rethinking their role and purpose to meet more complex and diverse needs. 

An important group of voluntary organisations working in criminal justice have their origins in human rights movements and are predominantly campaigning organisations seeking to improve the political and operational environment of criminal justice. This paper is particularly addressing those voluntary and community organisations whose purpose is the delivery of a rehabilitation service to people caught up in the criminal justice system, but recognises the benefits to the justice system that campaigning organisations are able to make.

The range of activities carried out by voluntary and community organisations delivering services has continued to change and expand, and increasingly has tended to specialise. In its 2019 report on the State of the Sector, Clinks, the charity that supports, promotes and represents the VCS working with people in the Criminal Justice Sector, reports that: 

• The majority of VCS organisations in the justice sector are small; roughly 30% have budgets less than £100,000 per year compared to only 14% in the wider VCS. 

• The majority of referrals to the VCS come from prisons; there is a roughly even split between VCS organisations working in the prisons and those working in the community. 

• Service users’ needs are ever more urgent and complex. 

• There is increased evidence of trauma, self-harm, mental ill health, violence and lack of both financial means and housing. 

• There is substantial work ongoing with families and with victims of abuse. 

• The VCS works with significant numbers of BAME service users. 
• Increasing range of education and employment organisations. 

• Voluntary organisations rely heavily on volunteering to delivery their services. 

• Smaller and voluntary organisations are more reliant on funding from charitable trusts and foundations (meaning that smaller organisations are more likely to be providing a “free” service to the Probation Service by taking referrals but not being directly funded it). 

• The VCS in the justice sector is increasingly financially vulnerable for the reasons documented and has fewer reserves than the wider VCS. 

Research studies have explored the relationship between the VCS and the Probation Service. Common themes that emerge include the importance of positive working relationships between practitioners from different agencies, the need for clear communication, and the benefits of colocation to certain organisations. 

The impact of an increasingly contractual and competitive environment on the funding, values and independence of the criminal justice voluntary sector has also been studied, with concerns raised about the risks to the autonomy and distinctiveness of the sector. The writing about the sector acknowledges its diversity, and discusses whether all work in partnership with probation and prison is inevitably about control as well as help.

The research also provides evidence to support the argument that the VCS is able to work in ways which are effective, different from the statutory sector, and valued and appreciated by service users. 

6. Benefits of effective relationships between Probation and the Voluntary and Community Sector 

The Probation Service has never been a monopoly provider of rehabilitation support. The problems faced by many of Probation’s service users are best addressed within the community where they live and where there is the range of services that will continue to support them. Probation will always need to rely on partnership with others, both statutory agencies and the VCS, to help to reduce re-offending. Voluntary and community organisations add significantly to the resources accessible to service users, particularly in areas not appropriate for statutory provision. In some instances, the VCS is also able to supplement wider welfare services in the community and to offer help more quickly – for example in alcohol or substance misuse cases. The resources also include mentors, counselling, preparation for education, training and employment, family support, funding for individual needs, shelter and advice. Probation staff are well placed to guide service users to appropriate VCS organisations and to broker their services but are not always sufficiently well informed, trained, motivated or managed to do so to best effect. 

7. Funding and recent developments 

The statutory Probation Service expanded in the early 1980s following the introduction of Parole, Community Service and Suspended Sentence Supervision Orders from the mid-1970s. The contribution of the VCS came more clearly in to view. There was never a golden age of funding, but practitioners with many years’ probation experience recall more positive and collaborative relationships with the VCS. Some probation areas were heavily involved in funding and working in partnership. Others had very little formal relationship. Good partnership work often relied on local relationships at management or even practitioner level. Support for the VCS was sometimes through grant funding or assistance in kind (e.g. staff secondments) rather than through service contracts. 

Pressures in Probation funding (unfunded increasing workloads and management systems) began in the mid-1990s and produced concern for the long-term sufficiency of funding. In this context possible threats to Probation were seen to be the use of “unqualified practitioners”, electronic monitoring, privatisation and the transfer of work to the VCS. Between 2008 and 2015 probation funding was reduced broadly in line with wider criminal justice cuts. The increasing focus on commercial business practice in Probation Areas, and subsequently Probation Trusts, moved the relationship with the VCS onto a more contractual basis. For a time in the 1990s and 2000s Probation Areas were given a target to spend a fixed percentage of their budgets on VCS partnerships. This mirrored the direction that the VCS had already been pushed in its relationships with other statutory providers especially Local Authorities and Health Services. However, there was limited commissioning knowledge or expertise within the probation world and little integration with other, much larger, commissioning structures.

In 2015, the Government initiative “Transforming Rehabilitation” brought the long-anticipated part-privatisation of Probation. There was an expectation that some of the MOJ contracts for the CRCs would be won by the VCS. It was fully expected that the CRCs would contract with the VCS and work collaboratively. Indeed, the CRCs were given the “budgets” and contractual powers for all probation contracts with the VCS. The National Probation Service was (and at the time of writing remains) unable to contract directly. This situation now looks set to change in the light of the recent announcement on the future of the Probation Service. In reality the use of funded partnerships by the CRCs was very limited although it is important to state that the picture has varied between CRCs. If the VCS was presented as an incentive to the private providers this failed to materialise. A report from Clinks in 2018 “Under Represented, Under Pressure and Under Resourced” showed that Transforming Rehabilitation had created a situation in which the “voluntary sector’s role in Probation services is unsustainable”.

As a consequence, a new generation of probation practitioners have decreasing experience of working in effective partnerships with the VCS. Changes made under the Offender Management Act 2007 removed the requirement that offenders be supervised by those qualified as Probation Officers thus reducing opportunities for time during training to develop skills and understanding in effective partnership working. 

At the time of writing, it is anticipated that the newly re-integrated National Probation Service will have a budget of £100 million per year dedicated to funding for partnership work with the VCS and wider independent organisations. This funding is to be managed regionally through the Probation Dynamic Framework from 2020 and will seek to contract for the provision of services including education, training and employment, accommodation, mentoring and counselling. There are continuing concerns that these arrangements and a preference for contracts over grants will favour the larger voluntary organisations and that commissioning will not be local enough to engage smaller organisations closer to communities. The impact of Covid-19 on the VCS is not fully understood at the time of writing but emerging evidence from Clinks is showing that organisations financial sustainability has been significantly impacted and this will also need to be taken into account in future funding arrangements. 

It is anticipated that there will be joint work with Police and Crime Commissioners in commissioning. This should build on the existing examples of good practice where justice has been devolved e.g. in Greater Manchester. 

8. Commissioning and Engaging 

Securing funding is an exacting and resource intensive activity for the VCS. Whether for grants or for a contract, the process for engaging the VCS needs to be accessible and achievable. The process for grant funding is a more accessible process. Funding arrangements that last for a short period are particularly demanding and insecure; therefore we recommend a minimum of two years with break clauses. The VCS should be engaged in the full commissioning cycle from service design to delivery. Many of the services provided by the VCS are within the overall remit of wider public services including health, housing, education, wider justice agencies. Multi agency commissioning leading to shared provision can bring greater understanding of local priorities, needs and risks. It can make better use of resources offering a normalising experience for service users. Examples are found in women’s centres, youth justice and health and wellbeing boards.

10. Confidentiality and protocols 

The exchange of information between Probation and the VCS is very important and is the responsibility of both parties. Information is vital to assessing and managing the risks that may be presented by service users and also to understanding their needs. 

Protocols that set out the arrangements for the recording and sharing of information within a partnership should always: 

• Safeguard appropriate confidentiality for service users. 

• Enable risk assessment and risk management processes. 

• Comply with data protection legislation. 

11. Professional Development and Professional Status 

It is recognised that the majority of voluntary sector organisations have skilled and experienced staff and volunteers but are not always able to access formal qualifications and accreditation due to resource constraints. 

The absence of dedicated funding or a specific requirement for training and skill levels for work in the VCS is an ongoing challenge not only for practitioners in these organisations but also for Responsible Officers, who are qualified either through the Professional Qualification in Probation (a Level 6 qualification) or a Level 3 qualification, and who understandably question the disparity in qualifications between sectors. 

The Apprenticeship model encourages sector wide development and design of shared assessment standards where there are skills and knowledge in common. Such a development through the Apprenticeship Institute would offer the VCS access to funding to train practitioners to a consistent, recognised standard. It could also strengthen confidence in the statutory sector to support collaboration and partnership. 

The Probation Institute is open to all practitioners working in rehabilitation and our view, clearly on record, is that recognition and registration of practitioners should extend across all practitioners and managers working with service users subject to formal court orders, in both statutory and voluntary organisations. 

11. Conclusion 

The Probation Institute will continue working with organisations representing the VCS and with the National Probation Service. We hope that the Principles set out in this paper will contribute to a stronger relationship between Probation and the VCS benefitting both service users and the wider public.

(para 9 isn't missing - there appears to be a numbering error)

A Probation Manifesto

With news that the government is on the verge of completely reversing the previous flawed and misguided rationale for involving the commercial and third sectors in the provision of probation services, it would be tempting to claim some kind of victory. Sadly I suspect the reality is as this reader succinctly put it:-  

"If the shitstorm ends it will be because there wasn't a buck in it for the private sector and for no other reason. No profit = No point. That's capitalism."

David Raho put it rather more elegantly:-

"Let’s be clear if a decision is made, as the article suggests, then this is for real world economic reasons not necessarily as the result of reasoned argument, lobbying and expert advice alone. The right wing neoliberal Conservative government is in no hurry to admit more failure at this time or be seen to be pandering to the demands of the liberal lobbyists. The simple fact is that if it’s likely to be cheaper to stop the PDP process than continuing with it, then that’s what will happen because the MoJ has no cash and is under financial pressure not least as a result of recent events."

Whatever, it's possibly one of the first positive unintended consequences of the dreaded virus and as another reader suggested, it offers the tantalising possibility of what could be as part of a new probation service post-covid. So, hopefully as a starter for discussion, here is their wish list:- 

If this does come to pass and I hope it does then the reform will only be complete if we are removed from the cold dead hand of the civil service and returned to a level of local governance that meets the specific needs of each of our communities. We need:- 

HR with humanity. 

IT that allows systems to talk to each other. 

Proper partnership with services from local government and Not For Profit providers. 

A training system that is fit for purpose. 

Leaders who will inspire a level of morale amongst us that gives us hope. 

Staffing levels that allow for workloads where we are no longer running to catch up with vital tasks and constantly worrying that we are behind. 

Networks across the country that champion and share best practice initiatives. 

Homelessness provision that actually works without people being released NFA. 

Working practices that account for our needs as parents and carers with real flexibility. 

Properly integrate and employ ex offenders into our system not just to act as mentors but to be PSO's and PO's that manage and support people from a perspective that they understand. 

Decriminalise drug use and turn punishment into treatment. 

Integrate with the burgeoning hotch potch of PCC initiatives popping up all over the country to ensure we're working together with the police and not against each other. 

A pro-active and integrated Personality Disorder Treatment Service as part of probation. 

Effective Forensic Mental Health services who know what we do and work with us. 

Educate our police colleagues to understand our value. 

Integrated sex offender management teams to include police and treatment providers under one roof. 

Properly integrate how people are prepared for release and to allocate tasks to HMPS that are relevant to them such as making sure everyone is released with a bank account and benefit claim in place where needed. 

Need to ensure that we have enough time and the skills to make sure the parole process is robust and fair and that every prisoner knows their COM and has a report written by their COM who knows them. 

An open and honest dialogue with prison law solicitors so they and we know what we're thinking and why before an oral hearing to avoid car crashes. 

A risk assessment system that makes sense to us and to offenders which is efficient and transparent. 

Get back to writing real PSR's that evidence risk and concentrate on what needs to be done to reduce it rather than recommend sentences. 

A Magistracy and Judges who believe in us and know what we do. 

UPW placements that visibly serve our communities and link to beneficiaries that work, with a constant effort to find more and better ways to make UPW mean something for offenders. 

Links to employers who can offer work placements and job mentoring and to promote and work with NFP organisations who do this. 

More and better funded AP's and every one must have a PIPE environment where the focus is on rehabilitation so residents believe in them and don't just see them as an extension of prison. 

And....WE NEED THE F*CKING PAY PROGRESSION WE WERE PROMISED. Any more for any more?

--oo00oo--

Finally, thanks go to readers for supplying the following:- 

Dear colleagues

You will have seen reporting over the past 24 hours suggesting that the Ministry of Justice could renationalise parts of probation that were set to be run by the new Probation Delivery Partners (PDPs) from next June. This follows the Department’s decision to suspend the process to appoint PDPs, which I communicated to you last week.

Like you, I have read the reports. I share your concern and deep sense of frustration that there are seemingly new questions over our future when we thought a new model had been determined. Just six months ago we successfully transitioned our services in Wales to the new arrangements and have received excellent feedback on the way we are working in close partnership with the National Probation Service and continuing to deliver for the people we support. After the tremendous work you have done through the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, recognised by the Lord Chancellor himself, I felt that we were moving into a more settled period after going through so much change.

If we are to transfer to another organisation, I am determined we do so with our heads held high with the service in good shape and the legacy of a safer community. We have worked so hard to create a service we can all be proud of, achieved in the face of often unfair criticism from external commentators. In the south west and in Wales over the past year colleagues have overturned a legacy of disinvestment and disrepair to turn around the service. The commitment all of you have shown takes a personal toll and I am very grateful for everything you have all done, and continue to do, in the interests of our professional integrity and the communities we serve. Regardless of what is communicated to us over the coming days and weeks, we will need to continue to draw from our deep reservoirs of professional integrity, compassion and dedication to our service.

In bittersweet timing, I am conscious we go to the polls next week to elect our first employee council as we cement Seetec’s progress towards a new structure of employee ownership. Despite the speculation about our future, I urge you all to vote. We have always been an organisation that is motivated to do the right thing for the people we support and the colleagues we work alongside. Playing our part in building a new employee-owned provider of public services is a valuable opportunity and I want our part of Seetec to turn out to have its voice heard in that new structure.

I will continue to keep you updated on what we hear from our commissioners at the Ministry of Justice. Thank you for everything you continue to do. Please do try to have a restful weekend.

Yours
Suki

--oo00oo--

Probation services update: meeting with Robert Buckland

As I mentioned in my earlier email, along with other probation providers, this afternoon I’ve met with the Rt Hon Robert Buckland to seek clarity on the pausing of the Probation Delivery Partners (PDP) contracts.

At the meeting, the Secretary of State confirmed that despite media speculation about probation renationalisation, no decisions have currently been made about the future delivery model. He and his ministerial colleagues are reviewing potential future delivery models as part of the work that is currently underway to develop COVID-19 recovery plans for probation. We are expecting a further announcement and decision over the coming days or weeks.

Once again, I’d like to reiterate that the media reports are speculation at this stage, and I understand how anxious you may feel when reading them. I’d like to reassure you that MTC remains committed to our vision to be the most trusted provider of justice services, and I will continue to have frequent dialogue with the Ministry of Justice over the coming days, continuing to update you once I have more information.

Thank you for your ongoing hard work and commitment at this uncertain time. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, please speak to your people manager in the first instance.

David Hood
Managing Director, MTC

A Dynamic Future?

Readers will be aware that some weeks ago Russell Webster offered to co-ordinate questions on the future design of probation and submit them to HMPPS. The answers eventually came through and it's probably as well we had a look at them:-

Thank you for inviting us to answer questions from your readers. Firstly, I just want to say something about the extreme and unsettling circumstances we are experiencing with the coronavirus. Reforming probation remains one of our top strategic priorities for the Criminal Justice System and the current issues we are facing don’t take away the need to stabilise and improve how probation protects the public and reduces reoffending.

We’d like to take this opportunity to thank all of our dedicated probation staff for their ongoing professionalism and commitment.

Jane Browne, Head of Strategy | Comms, Engagement, Marketing HMPPS Probation Reform & Workforce

The unified model

How will the new model encourage local engagement generally and with sentencers?

Partnerships will have a single organisation to contact in their region about an offender. This will particularly improve the information-sharing between, for example: the police, judiciary, social care, health and probation services and allow them to work closer together on initiatives such as Integrated Offender Management (IOM), Restorative Justice (RJ) as well as co-produce new services where there are gaps in services.

We are improving national and local liaison arrangements to increase sentencers’ confidence in the range of interventions that will be made available. We are doing this by improving the quality of court assessments and court recommendations. We will be providing better recommendation processes for accredited programmes, to reduce the need to return unworkable orders to court. There will also be local sentencing options relevant to local needs and risks, provided by the Probation Delivery Partner and the Dynamic Framework. We will also ensure comprehensive risk and needs assessments are carried out, so we match individuals to appropriate interventions which best addresses their needs, improving the likelihood of compliance and rehabilitation. An important part of this will be sourcing appropriate local services through the Dynamic Framework, which will help us maintain existing relationships and build new ones with local charities and services.
How will you ensure partnerships are developed with other government departments, particularly in relation to health, education, skills, employment and housing?

There is a tremendous amount of work going on in the “gaps” between government departments now – that’s where Government knows real gains can be made. For example, over the last couple of years we’ve been working with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and Public Health England to promote the use of Mental Health Treatment, Alcohol Treatment and Drug Rehabilitation requirements, diverting offenders away from custody and into community services that help sort the underlying causes of their criminality.

We are also currently exploring co-commissioning opportunities with other public bodies for services to be delivered through the Dynamic Framework. That might mean developing a peer mentor service for individuals on probation and supporting women’s centres. The funding mechanisms and new probation regions are deliberately geared to encourage greater working between partners and support smaller local organisations to get involved.

Commissioning/Contracting

What is being done to ensure a level playing field for small and specialist voluntary organisations in the commissioning of resettlement and rehabilitative services?

One of the things that clearly didn’t work previously was how small and specialist organisations, voluntary or otherwise, could get involved. The issues are well-documented but we’ve had this in mind throughout when designing the new model.

We know that some individuals will require specific, tailored support and so within the model, we have developed the Dynamic Framework. This will allow us to use more local organisations in the delivery of tailored resettlement and rehabilitation interventions/services. For example, staff will have a far greater ability to select interventions from a range of organisations and the Dynamic Framework will give us the ability to maintain and enhance those local relationships. Our current intention is to commission all services on the framework at Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) level which will also help us to align and strengthen local relationships.

Through-the-Gate

Where will Through-The-Gate sit in the new model: will it be prison-or community-based? Given the success of some of the new ETTG schemes, will these be preserved? Will current TTG staff have a role in the future model?

The new resettlement model takes the best of both worlds by embedding assessments for resettlement into sentence management and by using a range of different providers to deliver pre-and-post release interventions. There is some excellent work being done by some incredibly dedicated and hardworking teams in Through-the-Gate and we will want those staff to be part of our future resettlement model.

Diversity

Tell us about how you are incorporating findings of the Lammy Review

The Government accepted the recommendations of the Lammy Review and work has been going on across the criminal justice system to implement these over the last two years.

For the probation reform programme, this has included ensuring we have plans in place to add rigour to our data collection, monitoring and analysis, by looking at introducing, for example, an ‘equalities monitoring tool’ to assess the treatment of Black, Asian and ethnic minority offenders who are being managed on a community sentence or licence.

We also recognise that a greater proportion of Black and Asian people and people of other minority ethnic groups receive custodial sentences, with these groups markedly over-represented in the custodial population. They also receive a disproportionately high referral rate of Unpaid Work and a disproportionately low referral rate for Accredited Programmes. We are actively building in safeguards to ensure the advice we give sentencers in no way reflects biased or negative stereotypes associated with an individual’s ethnic background. And as with any major change, we’re in the process of completing an equality impact assessment which has shone a light on areas we need to improve further.

Substance Misuse

Will there be sufficient capacity and resources for management in the new model to work meaningfully with key stakeholders in substance misuse?

We know that many of our offenders’ experience dependency with drink or drugs and for some this can also trigger mental and physical health concerns. As well as working with our statutory and third sector partnerships on substance misuse, our Draft Target Operating Model, for example, supports the use of Mental Health Treatment, Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATRs), Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs) and Reconnect case workers.

Workforce

How will HMPPS be addressing areas around its workforce?

We know that workload for many probation officers is too high. We have more than 800 new probation officers currently in training who will make a real difference as they qualify. We are also working on a new plan to ensure we recruit sufficient staff, diversify the workforce, deliver more effective training, raise professional standards and properly recognise probation qualifications.

Our staff are the greatest asset to the probation system, and vital in ensuring that we keep the public safe and help turn around the lives of offenders. But we recognise the challenges facing those working within the system.

As well as ramping up our efforts to fill vacancies and meet future demand through recruitment, we will have a real focus on making sure our staff are supported to maintain their specialist skillset and progress their careers through a world-class and evidence-based learning and development offer. We also want to raise the profile of our dedicated workforce, ensuring that staff are recognised for the crucial and skilled work they undertake, while also rolling out a series of initiatives focusing on enhancing their wellbeing.

Transition

How will CRC and NPS offender managers be brought back together?

The 12 Probation Regions have been designed around our partnerships. Primarily this means mirroring police force boundaries. Each region has a director – all 12 have been in post from 1 April (some are existing NPS regional directors). They have responsibility for the transition in their region. We’ve set up a board in each region to oversee the transition and appointed specific people in the programme to manage the transition in each area. Their jobs will be to ensure that we integrate CRCs and NPS where identified as seamlessly as possible. We are also working on the many practical elements that this involves, such as estates, IT and pay and conditions for staff.

We know that the integration of NPS and CRC offender management teams will not happen overnight. The experience in Wales (where offender management was integrated in December 2019) has evidenced the importance of giving space and time before we start to blend caseloads. We are looking at what training and support we can provide to both NPS and CRC offender managers before the transition in June 2021 to address any gaps in experience caused by the current division of work.

Data

Will data about offenders in employment, training and education be extended to people supervised on prison release as well as those on community supervision?

Yes, our plan is to increase our use of data and improve our recording of data to best support the probation and prison workforce and those under our supervision or on licence.

What steps are being taken to improve the computer systems and data sharing?

Investing, upgrading and improving our systems is an integral part of the plans for our future Probation System. We need to provide our staff with smarter ways of working. We believe this will support both our workforce and those who are in our supervision. We do not under-estimate the importance of effective communication and the smart use of data gathering and sharing across the Probation System.

We have made a strenuous effort to learn from what has and hasn’t worked to date, listening to the concerns and suggestions from our practitioners and stakeholders.

The new model will ensure the delivery of sentence management by a single organisation. The 12 new probation regions will work with partners to deliver effective and innovative rehabilitation services, modernise out estate and technology to bring positive change and support our people in being their best.

We’ll continue to update people with updates on our website as we head towards the transition and those interested in reading more about the new model can read the Draft Target Operating Model.

On Being Authentic

Good Morning Jim,

Read yesterday's blog and heard your heartfelt lament that you are whistling in the wind! I know the feeling so well. Hope you took some heart from the replies to your blog. I wish to thank you for your blog, for being the only external forum that's kept me going through the Narnia winter period of TR1.

Having retired last November, I have been bingeing on the science fiction Netflix series Black Mirror. Time and time again I have been chilled by comparisons of the protagonists in an episode being out of step with the common herd and myself being out of step with the direction of the probation service during the last 5 years.

Thanks for allowing me to be a keyboard warrior in publishing two of my rants and republishing my response on OASys. However, once again, venting on social media has not done wonders for my mental health and I am now champing at the bit to return to the coalface in a Magistrates' Court which is my first love when I first started in probation over 30 years ago. Despite all the angst and the problems well documented by another one of my heroes, The Secret Barrister, I still consider the criminal courts to be our shop window. It's where we started as a profession and where we belong (this is one arena we are safe from the police taking over our role).

Having praised your blog there is one significant drawback of the blog format. The lack of an opportunity to have a continuing dialogue, a conversation, to explore the nuances of an issue which is possible only with a face to face discussion group. I think a lot of people who read your blog only feel motivated to join in if they strongly agree with you or strongly disagree with you. This is not your fault. It is just a limitation of the blog format. The result can be a tendency to be an echo chamber of like-minded folk.

One of the pleasures in working in the probation service in the early days was the diversity of the approaches that the probation staff used in working with service users. We had community probation officers who worked closely with youth workers and community groups. Neighbourhood probation officers who were mainly located in local estates; systemic probation officers who worked with whole families, group workers who worked in probation day centres. We had what would now be called a broad neurodiversity of staff methods. Officers were actually given the space and lattitude to specialise in their preferred approach. Compare that with the sterile mono-culture and group herd approach of HMPPS.

One belief keeps me going through The Matrix nightmare scenario probation is going through where you and I and Getafix and others seemingly keep knocking our heads against a brick wall - namely authenticity. Eventually the common herd will be able to see that the doubletalk they have been fed by the powers-that-be is a dead end and only those who have escaped the clutches of The Matrix offers any real hope for the future.

My closest probation colleague is a PSO. He is not a good fit for the ideal probation staff as listed in the current HMPPS probation job description. His written English is only fair. His maths is poor. But if I were to end up on probation I would want him as my supervising officer because he is authentic. He may struggle to compile a written sentence plan or keep up to date log entries or be PC about various equality issues but he spares no effort to get his people housed, in jobs, getting them a bank account and listening to their concerns. He told me just after I retired that being authentic was what we probation staff should strive for and in my opinion he is right.

Jim, how many times have we seen the service being restructured from A to B to C and finally to A again? I think it will come to pass that the social work ethos will prevail (I'm getting biblical now). Why? Because it is an honest way of working with service users and thus more likely to achieve lasting outcomes, changing lives, reducing victims and all the other la de da PMI's (performance management indicators) that is foisted upon us now.

In London Sadiq Khan wants control of the probation service as well as the Met police. This is the way forward for probation to be under the control of local PCCs and removed from the dead hand of the civil service. 

Our time will come again Jim, maybe just not in our lifetime (Spock to Kirk!) Keep up the faith lad.

Yours sincerely,

Say Hello to TOM

Here it is, hot off the press:-

Introducing the Draft Target Operating Model 

This model is the blueprint for a strengthened probation service – one that keeps the public safe through the effective supervision of offenders in the community, providing credible alternatives to custody for sentencers. It looks to help those subject to probation services by identifying the right rehabilitative support to address offending behaviour, whilst supporting victims to access high quality, timely and effective support to help them cope and, as far as possible, recover from the effects of crime and rebuild their lives. This Target Operating Model comes at a time when the Prime Minister has placed public protection and safer communities among the Government’s top priorities. 

The model is built on two guiding principles. First, our people – probation practitioners in the NPS workforce – will be central to achieving this. By giving probation practitioners the right tools and support, we will help them to assess individuals’ risk, protect the public and change the underlying behaviour of those they supervise to break the cycle of re-offending. Second, to achieve the outcomes we are seeking, we need leadership that is grounded in our local communities, orientated towards their needs and able to convene the local public, private and third sector partners.

A strengthened service will place probation as the catalyst for systemic improvement across the criminal justice system – our courts, our prisons and our communities – to: 

▲ Assess those charged with a crime so our courts can be advised of the often-complex factors at play in an individual’s circumstances. By getting this diagnosis right, probation can make sure the best interventions are being deployed that can divert the right people from prison by delivering safe and viable alternatives to custody. 

▲ Protect the public and victims of crime by managing the ever-changing needs and risk profiles of individuals subject to probation services, working to ensure they fulfil the conditions of their sentence and that swift action is taken when they do not. 

▲ Change people’s lives by delivering the right interventions to support people and provide the rehabilitation required to prevent future crimes. The Government is now putting reforms in place to reinvigorate the probation service and ensure it can reliably deliver its essential services, and continue to develop and innovate. Probation service staff will have their professional skills respected and developed, operations will be simplified, and the estate and technology will be modernised. 

With a need to prepare for the insights our data-rich world offers, and the desire to better design and tailor public services to the end-user, the reforms will allow probation to forge partnerships or jointly commission services with local partners enabling us to draw upon the experience and innovation that sits in other sectors.

What is changing? 

To learn lessons from the probation service’s recent past, and to build on its historic strengths, each element of probation’s work has been reviewed with potential changes consulted on with the delivery partners, external stakeholders, staff and professional leadership. 

These changes fall into five main areas: 

▲ Unifying how sentences are managed so all individuals are case-managed within the same organisation, the National Probation Service (NPS). This provides greater clarity on the responsibility for cases, and improves continuity for those under supervision. Probation practitioners managing the post-release licence, or sentence on behalf of the court, can focus on this and engage other interventions or sources of support. 

▲ Creating new regional probation leadership structures that enable greater local accountability and direction setting. We are creating a new leadership role to lead 11 new probation regions in England as well as a Director in Wales. Our 12 Regional Probation Director roles have been created to give senior managers autonomy to commit resources alongside other local decision-makers and partners. These regional roles provide visible leadership, accountability at the right level, and responsiveness to scrutiny or challenge. They provide confidence that the service can also adapt and drive national change when required by shifting circumstances or events. 

▲ Enabling partnerships to deliver effective rehabilitation services. We will commission and co-commission specialist services from other providers in the commercial, voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors, where their services offer greater capacity, better value, or specialism and innovation. As devolution has pushed powers and decision making out of Whitehall – with PCCs, devolution in Wales and the emergence of influential Mayors – probation will be able to contribute to local problem-solving and respond to regional challenges. New regional leaders will focus on bringing together other parts of the justice system at a more local level under shared objectives. We have designed the competition and commissioning processes to create greater ability to co-commission services, and to give more direct opportunities for national and local voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations to deliver services. 

▲ Modernising probation’s estate and technology so that it better supports the service’s work by providing the right physical space for working with individuals or groups, a high-quality working environment for staff and, where possible, encouraging collaboration with those working with the same individuals through co-location. Technology will be upgraded to enable better recording and sharing of information, and better analysis of data to inform effective decisions and planning. 

▲ Enabling staff to be their best. There is considerable evidence on reducing reoffending that confirms the importance of the quality of the face-to-face relationship that sits at the heart of sentence management. While working in probation is frequently seen as a vocation, the role still demands and deserves a clear framework for professional development. Our workforce strategy will be driven by the aim to retain and recruit the best people from diverse backgrounds, ensure our staff have the right support and skills they need, and provide them with professionally rewarding career paths.

Next steps 

The Draft Target Operating Model describes in more detail how we are shaping the service in its next evolution. We are approaching this reform eager to learn as we implement, iterating our approach to achieve the best design to keep the public safe.

The full 196 pages of bedtime reading can be found here. 

Third Sector News

I notice Clinks have news about those new probation contracts and the bid by the third sector to get a slice of the action:- 

Probation review update : commissioning of rehabilitative and resettlement services  

Before Christmas, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) began the competition for Probation Delivery Partners who will be responsible for delivering accredited programmes, unpaid work and structured interventions – read more about this in my last blog. They also ran a series of market engagement webinars on the services they plan to commission through the Dynamic Framework – read the slides from those webinars here.

This blog provides an update on what stage those commissioning processes are at.

During the Dynamic Framework market engagement, Clinks provided regular feedback from the sector on the proposals. We welcomed the decision to commission services at Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) area level following our feedback that commissioning services across whole probation areas would likely exclude the involvement of the majority of the sector. We were also very pleased that following discussions with Clinks and the women’s sector regarding proposals for women’s specialist services, all areas of identified need will now be commissioned as a single contract lot for women.

Below is an update from HMPPS on the stage that each competition has now reached:

Probation Delivery Partner

The Selection Questionnaire phase of the Probation Delivery Partner competition is now completed. This is the questionnaire issued by contracting authorities to prospective bidders interested in securing public sector works, supply or services contracts as a way of short-listing interested parties which meet the applicable selection criteria. Bidders have been informed whether or not they have been successful and successful bidders were issued invitations to tender on 6 February and bid responses are due by 20 March.

Dynamic Framework

Following feedback from Market Engagement events with interested suppliers, HMPPS have amended their proposed categories on the Dynamic Framework. They will run competitions for services at Police and Crime Commissioner geographical level in the following groups:

1. Accommodation

2. Education, Training, Employment and Finance, Benefits, Debt

3. Dependency and Recovery (previously named Addictions and Dependencies)

4. Wellbeing Services (which is made up of the following categories; Lifestyle & Associates, Emotional & Personal Wellbeing, Family & Significant Others, Social Inclusion)

5. Women’s Interventions (which meet the needs identified above in one package)

They anticipate launching qualification for the dynamic framework in May. They are taking more time before launch to identify and assess the regional requirements at of National Probation Service Regional Directors for each lot described above.

Ahead of launching the Dynamic Framework and during the qualification for the framework, they will run a series of engagement events across the country, to raise awareness to the widest possible range of potential providers, and answer questions on the qualification process.

In addition they will inform the market of the call-off competition pipeline and continue market engagement to provide more information on the specification for each call-off.

Continuing to influence on behalf of the sector

We remain in regular contact with the probation review team as they develop plans for the Dynamic Framework and have offered support to provide knowledge and intelligence from the voluntary sector to engage with their work to identify and assess regional requirements in each lot. We are also in discussions about how we might support the engagement events when the Dynamic Framework is launched in order to ensure that the voluntary sector is fully able to participate in these.

We continue to highlight that grants are essential to the voluntary sector’s full engagement with any future probation model. We are also providing feedback on where the commissioning processes might be overly burdensome and present an uneven playing field for the sector – for instance with regards to IT assurance requirements.

We also continue to raise significant concerns that specialist services for black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people are not being considered as a day one service (the services that will be commissioned directly by HMPPS from day one of implementation of the new model). We understand that this is because in some areas BAME service user numbers will be very low. However, we feel that in order to meet the Lammy Review recommendations, in both their letter and spirit, specific services for BAME people should be commissioned as day one services at least in areas with high BAME caseloads. Otherwise specialist BAME organisations will only find themselves commissioned as sub-contractors in wider supply chains, if at all.

We will continue to provide the sector with updates through Light Lunch, Twitter, blogs and our probation webpage.

Police Becoming a 'One Stop Shop'

It's almost certainly a product of advancing years that things that seemed understood and quite straightforward years ago are now an almost complete mystery. Things were so simple, but now aren't. Jobs and role boundaries have changed beyond recognition and as one agency has retreated from areas of work, another has taken it over.

I can still recall being shocked by a phone call many years ago from a police officer regarding a client of mine and their 'supervision' of them. I heard myself saying 'but that's my job' as they explained their job title under the umbrella of Integrated Offender Management. 

Isn't it astonishing that during a period of austerity and substantial cuts in numbers of police officers, the police have been quietly encroaching upon areas of work that most would feel were the legitimate purview of other more appropriate agencies, such as probation. It surely cannot be unconnected that as probation has found itself increasingly side-lined and in chaos, the police have been quietly moving their tanks onto our lawns?

Of particular note is Durham Constabulary who were testing the legal boundaries some time ago with 'supervision' facilities for the injecting of heroin provided by them! Now they are flying the flag for the rehabilitation of offenders as well because, as the Chief Constable puts it, "the current criminal justice sanctions were not effective for dealing with low-level offences such as shoplifting, assault or drug possession." 

It's absolutely extraordinary that as probation is being quietly strangled under the dead hand of centralised bureaucratic control, it's now the police who are able to be flexible, innovative and forward-thinking. No more 'we lock 'em up and you let 'em out'. They are the new liberal-minded social service, the 'iron fist in a velvet glove'. Why don't we just merge with them and have done with it - a 'one stop shop'? We might be better off under the Police and Crime Commissioners than bloody civil servants. This from the Guardian:-

Durham's pioneering police scheme slashes reoffending rates

Reoffending rates have been slashed in a pioneering police scheme in north-east England which experts say could lead to a transformation in how the justice system deals with violent crime.

More than 2,660 offenders who have committed offences such as burglary and assault have taken part in an experiment in which they avoid prosecution if they take part in a rehabilitation programme for issues such as mental health and substance abuse. If they complete the four-month contract with police, they walk away without a criminal conviction. If they do not, they are prosecuted in the traditional way.

The initiative by Durham constabulary is the longest-running and most advanced of its kind in England, with at least five other forces, including Surrey and Devon & Cornwall, considering the introduction of similar schemes. The first results of the trial, seen by the Guardian, found a 15-percentage point drop in reoffending after two years among those who took part in rehabilitation compared with those who did not.

Most of the 519 offenders in the first cohort of the trial had been arrested for violence, theft, drug possession or criminal damage. About half had no previous convictions but others had been arrested as many as 52 times. The results, which are part of a University of Cambridge study to be published in 2022, are the most significant indication to date of the long-term success of “deferred prosecution” programmes in England.

The findings will reopen the debate about whether such initiatives represent “soft justice”, as some critics claim, or are successful in reducing crime and cutting costs. The idea has gained traction with senior police leaders and is to be discussed by the National Police Chiefs Council later this month.

Jo Farrell, the chief constable of Durham constabulary, said the current criminal justice sanctions were not effective for dealing with low-level offences such as shoplifting, assault or drug possession. “What I’m not saying is where people commit serious offences, they won’t feel the full force of the law,” she said. “This isn’t about trying to do things on the cheap or divert people away from court or prison. It’s a cohort of people for whom this cycle will never end unless we do something different.”

Under the Durham programme, called Checkpoint, offenders spend four months with a police supervisor who helps them access support for issues including mental health, to drug or alcohol use, homelessness and communication skills. Of the 2,660 offenders involved in the trial to date, only 166 (6%) have reoffended.

The initiative also involves the victim of the crime, consulting them on the progress of the offender’s rehabilitation, although they do not get the final say on whether the offender is prosecuted. Durham police said only five victims had complained out of the 2,660 offenders who had completed the programme.

Checkpoint costs the force £480,000 a year but an internal estimate suggests that for every 1,000 offenders it saves at least £2m a year in reduced crime. A similar trial in the West Midlands, which ended in 2014, tracked 414 offenders over two years and found that the amount and severity of reoffending by those on deferred prosecutions was lower, or no worse, than those who were prosecuted. That study, by criminologists at Cambridge, has not yet been published.

Prof Lawrence Sherman of the university’s Institute of Criminology said there was mounting evidence against the prosecution of low-level offences such as theft or common assault. “It’s expensive, it rarely results in a formal punishment, victims aren’t satisfied with it. It’s generally a pretty bad way to manage low-level offences which are the highest volume offences,” he said.

Sophie Gregory, criminology course director at Birmingham City University, described the Durham findings as significant and said: “We know that around two-thirds of women and a third of men are reportedly committing crime to fund addictions, so if we can go back to that root problem and help with some tailored support long term it has got to help reduce reoffending.”

The debate about rehabilitation was reignited by the terrorist attacks in London Bridge in November and Streatham this month, both carried out by men who had been recently released after prison sentences for terrorism offences. Boris Johnson also made “law and order” a key part of his 2019 election campaign, promising among other things to prosecute within a week anyone caught with a knife.

But Farrell said such a blanket approach may not always be appropriate. “Within all offences, there’s context. You get bold statements by politicians: ‘Everybody who carries a knife must go to prison.’ Policing is based on discretion – we have a lot of discretion and a lot of autonomy,” she said. “Context is everything and the situation you’re dealing with and their background. Taking a very binary position on things strikes me as a not very intelligent way of dealing with an issue.”

Alex Mayes of the charity Victim Support said the one wish of those affected by crime was for the offender to stop offending. He added: “Where evidence shows offender management schemes to be effective at reducing reoffending, many victims of low-level offences may be open to credible and safe programmes. However, just as in the wider public, justice means different things to different victims of crime. For this reason, where these schemes are used, it is vital that all victims receive explanations as to their use, and that victims’ ongoing feedback is sought in order to inform the process.”

Tory Plans For Probation

Err, there aren't any it seems. 

There is this though:-

We will add 10,000 more prison places, with £2.75 billion already committed to refurbishing and creating modern prisons.

We will create a prisoner education service focused on work-based training and skills. We will improve employment opportunities for ex-offenders, including a job coach in each prison. This approach is proven to reduce reoffending. We are improving prison security to protect staff, stop drug smuggling and reduce violence.

We will maintain the ban on prisoners voting from jail. 

We will create a prisoner education service focused on work-based training and skills. We will improve employment opportunities for ex-offenders, including a job coach in each prison.

We will conduct a root-and-branch review of the parole system to improve accountability and public safety, giving victims the right to attend hearings for the first time, and we will establish a Royal Commission on the criminal justice process.

We will toughen community sentences, for example by tightening curfews and making those convicted do more hours of community payback to clean up our parks and streets.

We will strengthen the accountability of elected Police and Crime Commissioners and expand their role.

We will expand electronic tagging for criminals serving time outside jail, including the use of sobriety tags for those whose offending is fuelled by alcohol.

What Future for Probation? 3

Frances Crook of the Howard League has made the case for PCCs not taking control of probation and Rob Allen has responded:- 

Taking Stock: More Local Control of Probation?

Among its wonderful wealth of exhibits, Oxford’s Pitt-Rivers Museum includes a set of village stocks, originally placed on the footpath in College Lane Littlemore in March 1857. They were made especially for the punishment of a man sentenced by the magistrates to spend 6 hours in them.

The wooden stocks were built by one Richard Humphries, “Village Constable and Carpenter” and it was this that came to mind while reading Frances Crook’s powerful argument against Police and Crime Commissioners assuming responsibility for the probation service. Frances thinks it would be wrong “for an authority that is charged with overseeing policing with its investigative role also to oversee the infliction of a sentence. This creates an inherent conflict of interest, particularly if there is any element of private profit-making bodies involved.” Constable Humphries seems to prove the point.

Yet I can see more merit than does Frances in more devolved organisational and financial arrangements for probation and indeed prisons. One of the key principles of a Justice Reinvestment approach is giving local people greater responsibility for preventing and dealing with crime. The hope is that if local agencies must meet the costs of locking up people in their area, they are more likely to take steps to do less of it.

The reconfiguration of probation provides an opportunity to incentivise this transfer of resources away from prison places and into community-based measures for rehabilitating offenders and preventing crime. At any one time, about 100 people in crisis ridden Birmingham jail are serving sentences of six months or less. Probation might work harder to develop credible and innovative alternatives for these petty offenders if they stood to access some of the savings that would result from lowering prison numbers. They might also provide interventions which would enable the police and prosecutors to keep more in the way of minor cases out of the courts altogether.

Creating this dynamic would require a regional or local mechanism for allocating and shifting resources across the criminal justice piece. I’ve argued that this role could be played by PCCs working with local authorities in Justice and Safety Partnerships. The Howard League’s 2009 Commission on English Prisons suggested that “with local authorities as lead partners, .. local strategic partnerships should be formed that bring together representatives from the criminal justice, health and education sectors, with local prison and probation budgets fully devolved and made available for justice reinvestment initiatives.”

There are already tentative steps towards devolution in Greater Manchester and London where the PCC role is carried out by the mayor. But there is a case for going farther and faster. The Strengthening Probation initiative looks more and more like a roadside repair on a vehicle that should be written off.

In 2009, in arguing for directly elected sheriffs to run criminal justice, Douglas Carswell suggested that a putative Sheriff of Kent, “knowing that he was up for re-election, might rule, that instead of facing jail, shoplifters would be forced to stand outside Bluewater with placards around their necks reading ‘shoplifter’.” While this is nonsense, there are risks in a localising punishment. But there are opportunities too.

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

I rather like this view from Joe Kuipers:-

"I would advocate a structural model of 10 unified probation regions + Wales, each overseen by a multidisciplinary board accountable to an independent national probation board, with delivery based on LDU structures."

What Future for Probation? 2

Yesterday's rousing plea from Frances Crook has nicely kicked off a bit of a debate, but with the sham probation consultation cleverly running during a period when many colleagues, especially those with children, are focused on holidays, returns to school, university etc, I suspect numerous pleas for ideas and views are going unheeded. Here's one from the Probation Institute:- 

Dear readers

The Probation Institute Fellows and Directors met on 14th August to consider the consultation "Strengthening Probation, Building Confidence".

Our response will be developed in full in the coming weeks, it will address the majority of the questions, focussing on some particularly key issues which, in headline terms will include 

• An 8 week timescale set away in mid summer is too short for this consultation
• The review must clearly state the purpose and the goals of changes needed before determining more new structures
• Re-integration of offender management should be applied across England and Wales
• We believe the proposal for a Professional Register should be more ambitious, wider in scope and driven by professional development for all practitioners as well as the conduct issues
• The challenge of re-thinking post release supervision for under 12 month sentences should be a consultation in its own right and is critically important
• A better balance between speed and time for a thorough assessment is needed in pre sentence reports

We are developing our thinking about performance/payment measures and about "intelligent commissioning". Our response will also include our views on professional training and the need for clear definition of roles. We are concerned that the consultation could destabilise probation training.

We would like to receive views of members on the consultation as early as possible to help us to develop our response. Please send us your views.

Helen Schofield
Acting Chief Executive

--oo00oo--

Thanks to the reader for forwarding this from their Napo branch regarding rather short notice of the event yesterday at HMP Askham Grange when Sonia Crozier and Ian Poree were due to put in an appearance. Can anyone who attended please tell us what transpired?  

Have your say - Strengthening Probation Building Confidence

Probation – What now?

Members will be acutely aware of the impact Transforming Rehabilitation had on both the service we provide and staff well-being. As we move towards what effectively amounts to TR Mark 2 it is imperative that members have their say on how to repair that damage and strengthen probation services.

Napo believes that Probation has no place in the private sector and should be brought back under public ownership. You will have your own views on what is required. Don’t miss this very important opportunity to have your say. You can register for this event or any others on the list here https://intranet.noms.gsi.gov.uk/news-and-updates/notices/probation-changes-invitation-to-staff-engagement-events

For members in the CRC please pass your comments and suggestions to your LDU colleagues who may be attending the event.

You can also attend in your own time.

--oo00oo--

On the subject of Police and Crime Commissioners, I'll end with this reminder from the archive dated 5th February 2016:-

Political Corruption

According to the latest edition of Private Eye, SEETEC is the latest of the probation privateers to be in special measures for failing an audit, but Home Secretary Theresa May has a cunning plan for probation - give it to PCC's to sort out.

Now those with long memories will recall that Police and Crime Commissioners was a concept floated a long time ago by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange to replace Police Authorities. It was an idea that had no public support and their election three years ago recorded the lowest ever turnout with hundreds of thousands of spoilt ballot papers, a fact that the government and Theresa May has conveniently swept under the carpet. This comment from yesterday summed it up nicely I thought:-

Democracy all round, then, as probation services and the modern version of borstal schools are handed on a plate to politically sponsored individuals who, at best, were shoe-horned into something like £65,000 a year PCC roles on the back of 30% of the votes from an average 15% turnout by the electorate. I'm not a statistician, but doesn't that effectively mean these quango's are being run by one person on the basis of getting the nod from just 5% of the electorate?

Like much of government policy nowadays, it was cooked up on the back of several fag packets and during her speech yesterday, even she admitted that at one point she felt it had all been a ghastly mistake. But only three PCCs have so far significantly disgraced themselves, none of them Tories, so relief all round and in fact completely unbeknown to the public, the decision has been made to give these barely-elected officials even more power over the Fire Service.

In a very sneaky move last month, departmental responsibility for the Fire Service moved quietly from the Department for Communities and Local Government, back to the Home Office in readiness for what will effectively become a merger of police and fire service functions under the joint control of PCCs. But clearly Theresa May feels suitably emboldened in her empire-building to now actively consider adding youth justice, probation and education to her portfolio:-

"But in the future, I would like to see the PCC role expanded even further still. Together with the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, I have been exploring what role PCCs could play in the wider criminal justice system. This is something that I have long believed in and which a number of PCCs have shown interest in. As they say, there is a reason that we included the words “and crime” in PCC’s titles.

So after the May elections, the Government will set out further proposals for police and crime commissioners. Because as a number of PCCs have argued, youth justice, probation and court services can have a significant impact on crime in their areas and there are real efficiencies to be had from better integration and information sharing. We have yet to decide the full extent of these proposals and the form they will take, but I am clear that there is significant opportunity here for PCCs to lead the same type of reform they have delivered in emergency services in the wider criminal justice system. 

And there are other opportunities too. As Adam Simmonds has argued, I believe the next set of PCCs should bring together the two great reforms of the last Parliament – police reform and school reform – to work with and possibly set up alternative provision free schools to support troubled children and prevent them from falling into a life of crime.
And alongside the expansion of PCC responsibilities, the development of powerful directly elected mayors provides a fantastic opportunity, where there is local agreement and boundaries make sense, to bring together policing with local transport, infrastructure, housing and social care services under a single directly elected mayor. I know many PCCs have engaged with local proposals, and I would encourage them to continue to do so - because I am clear that PCCs’ consent is a prerequisite for the inclusion of policing in any mayoral deal."

Now there's another funny thing - mention of 'Elected Mayor's'. I seem to remember the public were not too keen on them either. When John Prescott floated the idea years ago up in Durham and the North East, it was roundly rejected in a referendum and similarly where I live, electors comprehensively gave it the thumbs down. So how is it we're getting one imposed on us by George Osborne and Central Government anyway?

So lets get this right. The public didn't want PCCs, didn't turn out to vote for them and many that did, spoilt their ballot papers. The public don't know who they are, what they do or who is standing for election because candidates do not qualify for a free mailout. During the election for PCCs there will be no mention of the proposed new powers, that will only be decided after they are get elected.

What was the title of Theresa May's speech? Why, 'Putting People in Charge' of course! Oh how the English language has been utterly corrupted by politicians.