On Tuesday this week the government announced the figures for their flagship work programme designed to reward contractors if they find jobs for the long-term unemployed. You may recall that this topic was discussed at some length a couple of weeks ago when former A4E boss Emma Harrison continually told Channel 4 news that the figures they had "were wrong."
Well of course it turns out that they were spot on with no contractor achieving the government's minimum of 5.5% of those referred obtaining employment. In fact the average achieved of 3.5% is actually less than if people hadn't been referred to the programme at all. So much for the huge success of Payment by Results then, particularly as it's being hailed as the government's answer to tackling high reconviction rates within the criminal justice sector.
So far the scheme has cost £485 million with little obvious benefit. Contractors such as Ingeus achieved only a 3.3% success rate and A4E only 2.8%. Funnily enough Emma Harrison has appeared loathe to comment on these official figures.
Although a huge embarrassment for government, and you can bet these figures were the subject of many recounts, why on earth should it come as any great surprise? Here we are still in the middle of a worldwide recession, with high levels of unemployment, and these work programme providers are expected to somehow magic jobs out of thin air for some of the most challenging clients imaginable.
It is of course 'mission impossible' at the best of times and certainly requires a great deal of coaching, support, perseverance and dogged determination on the part of staff in order to achieve a change of mindset in many cases. Huge numbers of those referred have been 'languishing' as Ian Duncan Smith put it, on Disability or ESA for years and have now failed the dodgy eligibility tests administered by Atos. Significant numbers would be regarded as unemployable by many without some intensive and expensive interventions which are simply not regarded as economically worthwhile by contractors paid on the present results only basis.
The most obvious point to make in all this is that in most cases work programme contractors are not doing anything more than that formerly undertaken by Job Centre Plus staff, but at considerable additional cost to the public purse. There will surely come a time when the penny finally drops that the 'work' could be brought back in-house in view of the very poor outcomes, and save all the money being paid over to the likes of A4E. Now there's an idea.....
Friday, 30 November 2012
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Do You Believe in Fairies?
So the right wing of the Tory Party have not been disappointed. Today Justice Minister Chris Grayling announced the demise of the publicly-run probation service as we know it. In addition to finally enacting a long-forgotten clause in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act that will provide post release support to prisoners serving 12 months or less, so-called 'custody plus', he has also decreed that supervision of 'low risk' probation clients will be put out to tender.
Despite there still being no hard evidence that Payment by Results actually works, the whole plan to provide former offender mentors ('old lags?') at the prison gate is predicated on the touching belief that third sector organisations and charities can work their magic and thus be remunerated on a results basis. And the figures are staggering. About 50,000 prisoners are released each year having served less than 12 months. That's one hell of an army of mentors to train and newly released prisoners to motivate! Beds to find, jobs to secure and crises to sort before they get paid. No temptation to fiddle of course.
Mr Grayling says that released prisoners will be required to attend drug projects and supervision sessions, which in itself will be an interesting concept for many offenders who hitherto have been used to just 'doing their time' untroubled by well-meaning probation staff. As a concept I have to say it has all the classic hallmarks of a half-baked policy designed specifically for political consumption. You know, like that Tony Blair idea of 'marching' miscreants to the cash point in order to pay an on the spot fine, or even the Tory 'short sharp shock' experiment so loved by young thugs.
Despite the probation service having achieved all targets set for it, we are nevertheless told that the motivation is to save money, the implication being that the private sector will be much more effective and cheaper than the public sector. Call me an old cynic, but as a humble public servant I find I have to put all this into some sort of context, especially as we've just blown £100 million on an utterly pointless election with the lowest ever turnout rate.
We discover that three vast American corporations operating in this country pay virtually no corporation tax here at all. A trader at UBS gets 7 years imprisonment for losing the bank £1.4 billion because he was greedy and wanted to keep his bonus and status. His employers had no idea what he was up to. Hewlett Packard pays $10 billion for a British company and now complains they were 'hoodwinked' as it was only worth $8.5 billion. Whatever happened to the old adage 'buyer beware?' Maybe KPMG who did due diligence can answer that one.
Even Rangers win their tax appeal against HMRC and the Prime Minister touchingly feels that forcing all the energy companies to only have four tariffs will mean cheaper gas and electricity for all of us.
Do you believe in fairies?
Despite there still being no hard evidence that Payment by Results actually works, the whole plan to provide former offender mentors ('old lags?') at the prison gate is predicated on the touching belief that third sector organisations and charities can work their magic and thus be remunerated on a results basis. And the figures are staggering. About 50,000 prisoners are released each year having served less than 12 months. That's one hell of an army of mentors to train and newly released prisoners to motivate! Beds to find, jobs to secure and crises to sort before they get paid. No temptation to fiddle of course.
Mr Grayling says that released prisoners will be required to attend drug projects and supervision sessions, which in itself will be an interesting concept for many offenders who hitherto have been used to just 'doing their time' untroubled by well-meaning probation staff. As a concept I have to say it has all the classic hallmarks of a half-baked policy designed specifically for political consumption. You know, like that Tony Blair idea of 'marching' miscreants to the cash point in order to pay an on the spot fine, or even the Tory 'short sharp shock' experiment so loved by young thugs.
Despite the probation service having achieved all targets set for it, we are nevertheless told that the motivation is to save money, the implication being that the private sector will be much more effective and cheaper than the public sector. Call me an old cynic, but as a humble public servant I find I have to put all this into some sort of context, especially as we've just blown £100 million on an utterly pointless election with the lowest ever turnout rate.
We discover that three vast American corporations operating in this country pay virtually no corporation tax here at all. A trader at UBS gets 7 years imprisonment for losing the bank £1.4 billion because he was greedy and wanted to keep his bonus and status. His employers had no idea what he was up to. Hewlett Packard pays $10 billion for a British company and now complains they were 'hoodwinked' as it was only worth $8.5 billion. Whatever happened to the old adage 'buyer beware?' Maybe KPMG who did due diligence can answer that one.
Even Rangers win their tax appeal against HMRC and the Prime Minister touchingly feels that forcing all the energy companies to only have four tariffs will mean cheaper gas and electricity for all of us.
Do you believe in fairies?
Saturday, 17 November 2012
The Real Story
I sometimes despair of our news media in this country. How long is it going to take for them to cotton on to the real story about the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners? It's not the empty Gwent ballot box or the pathetic turnout or even the rejection of party political candidates, it's the massive increase in spoilt papers.
We've had a long history of spoiling ballot papers as a defiant act of civil disobedience in this country. When the news media finally get around to realising what actually happened on Thursday and tot up the totals for all police areas, I'm confident it will be a very significant number indeed.
Make no mistake, by and large this wasn't people confused about a new election and the possibility of recording a second preference, it was very angry people determined to register their disdain for the whole charade and making that clear by comments left across the ballot paper. I know because I sat for 15 hours in a draughty school hall running a polling station and some voters seemed to be taking a great deal of time over what they were writing on their papers.
As Returning Officers have found out at the count, thousands of disgruntled voters throughout the land have left some very angry comments directed at the government. In Devon and Cornwall, the last area to declare, a total of 6,339 papers were 'spoilt' representing 3% of the total and more than were cast for one of the independent candidates in the election. If that is representative of the rest of the country, in my view it is the real story of what happened on Thursday and government would do well to take notice.
I feel I want to put on record that Thursday was a huge missed opportunity. Readers will be aware that I advocated spoiling papers a couple of weeks ago, but the idea was sadly rejected by Inspector Gadget who advocated not voting instead. Unfortunately this action merely supports the view that people were apathetic about the process, when in fact many were angry and wanted to register that anger. The spoilt totals could have been much, much higher.
By the way, I have absolutely no confidence that the very expensive and toothless Electoral Commission will have anything remotely useful to say on the subject.
We've had a long history of spoiling ballot papers as a defiant act of civil disobedience in this country. When the news media finally get around to realising what actually happened on Thursday and tot up the totals for all police areas, I'm confident it will be a very significant number indeed.
Make no mistake, by and large this wasn't people confused about a new election and the possibility of recording a second preference, it was very angry people determined to register their disdain for the whole charade and making that clear by comments left across the ballot paper. I know because I sat for 15 hours in a draughty school hall running a polling station and some voters seemed to be taking a great deal of time over what they were writing on their papers.
As Returning Officers have found out at the count, thousands of disgruntled voters throughout the land have left some very angry comments directed at the government. In Devon and Cornwall, the last area to declare, a total of 6,339 papers were 'spoilt' representing 3% of the total and more than were cast for one of the independent candidates in the election. If that is representative of the rest of the country, in my view it is the real story of what happened on Thursday and government would do well to take notice.
I feel I want to put on record that Thursday was a huge missed opportunity. Readers will be aware that I advocated spoiling papers a couple of weeks ago, but the idea was sadly rejected by Inspector Gadget who advocated not voting instead. Unfortunately this action merely supports the view that people were apathetic about the process, when in fact many were angry and wanted to register that anger. The spoilt totals could have been much, much higher.
By the way, I have absolutely no confidence that the very expensive and toothless Electoral Commission will have anything remotely useful to say on the subject.
Friday, 9 November 2012
Punishment
I notice that disgraced Olympic security contractor G4S has been roundly punished by the government and have not only lost the contract to run HMP Wolds, but in addition have not made it onto the shortlist for contracts to run a further four prisons.
Interestingly, the Ministry of Justice has decided to keep three other prisons in the public sector, having previously included them in the tendering process. Accordingly HMP Coldingley, Durham and Onley will not now be up for grabs, but Sodexo, Serco and MTC/Amey are still in the race for the four remaining prisons namely HMP Northumberland, Moorland, Hatfield and Lindholme.
As the government's largest security contractor and representing 10% of G4S income, there is no doubt that this decision has sent shock waves through the company and is clear evidence that 'reputational' damage has been caused. Their share price was hit significantly and apparently the company is urgently seeking feedback as to why their bids failed. The Chief Executive Nick Buckles must surely be considering his position.
Losing control of HMP Wolds is extremely significant because it was Britains first private prison 20 years ago. Added to the recent woes associated with train franchising, it's at last becoming clear that there are major problems with so-called outsourcing and privatisation of public services generally. Interestingly it seems that shares of other companies in the sector such as Interserve and Serco fell with investors hearing of the news. Oh, and the CBI is very critical apparently, so this really is beginning to look like a watershed moment in terms of a government rethink.
Interestingly, the Ministry of Justice has decided to keep three other prisons in the public sector, having previously included them in the tendering process. Accordingly HMP Coldingley, Durham and Onley will not now be up for grabs, but Sodexo, Serco and MTC/Amey are still in the race for the four remaining prisons namely HMP Northumberland, Moorland, Hatfield and Lindholme.
As the government's largest security contractor and representing 10% of G4S income, there is no doubt that this decision has sent shock waves through the company and is clear evidence that 'reputational' damage has been caused. Their share price was hit significantly and apparently the company is urgently seeking feedback as to why their bids failed. The Chief Executive Nick Buckles must surely be considering his position.
Losing control of HMP Wolds is extremely significant because it was Britains first private prison 20 years ago. Added to the recent woes associated with train franchising, it's at last becoming clear that there are major problems with so-called outsourcing and privatisation of public services generally. Interestingly it seems that shares of other companies in the sector such as Interserve and Serco fell with investors hearing of the news. Oh, and the CBI is very critical apparently, so this really is beginning to look like a watershed moment in terms of a government rethink.
Friday, 2 November 2012
OASys Won't Help
Which ever probation officer has been given the very unenviable task of writing the PSR on Ezekiel McCarthy would be well advised to forget using OASys in my humble opinion, for I'm absolutely sure it will be of no assistance at all.
Despite this, I note that the Press Association reports from the Old Bailey state that His Honour Judge Peter Beaumont, the Recorder of London, wants the man's 'dangerousness' assessing as part of an 'all options' PSR by December 4th.
By all accounts it's a tragically sad case involving 84 year-old Mr McCarthy mistaking his nephew for a burglar and as a consequence stabbing him in the liver. The nephew died three days later and the Court accepted a plea of guilty to Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Medical reports stated that at the time Mr McCarthy had 'suffered an acute episode of delirium or confusion brought about by medical conditions linked to his age.'
So, what on earth might society feel was an appropriate way of dealing with possibly the oldest defendant ever to appear at the Central Criminal Court? How on earth might OASys, a computer programme, assist in helping determine the level of dangerousness he might pose?
At this point I think it's worth noting that at NAPO's recent AGM in Torquay, a motion advocating a campaign for the reintroduction of the straight Probation Order was defeated, broadly on the grounds that the public would find such an argument for what was essentially a welfare-type order difficult to understand. I think it would be fair to say that the government would not be likely to be sympathetic either at the present time!
Since famously becoming a 'law enforcement' agency some time ago, the mantra in probation has been 'resources follow risk.' I've never accepted this and in fact I'm on record as saying I think it's bollocks. A wise society would do well to acknowledge that some people's offending behaviour just doesn't fit neatly into any OASys ordained box. Sometimes there are just over-whelming welfare issues and if probation doesn't tackle them, which other agency will?
In the past and in such cases when courts felt stumped as what to do, there was always the option of the all-embracing generic Probation Order of up to 3 years. However, such has been the move away from this kind of mindset that apparently in West Yorkshire staff are currently forbidden from suggesting the modern equivalent Community Order with Supervision only. My hunch is that the Recorder of London will deal with the case appropriately having regard to welfare issues.
Despite this, I note that the Press Association reports from the Old Bailey state that His Honour Judge Peter Beaumont, the Recorder of London, wants the man's 'dangerousness' assessing as part of an 'all options' PSR by December 4th.
By all accounts it's a tragically sad case involving 84 year-old Mr McCarthy mistaking his nephew for a burglar and as a consequence stabbing him in the liver. The nephew died three days later and the Court accepted a plea of guilty to Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Medical reports stated that at the time Mr McCarthy had 'suffered an acute episode of delirium or confusion brought about by medical conditions linked to his age.'
So, what on earth might society feel was an appropriate way of dealing with possibly the oldest defendant ever to appear at the Central Criminal Court? How on earth might OASys, a computer programme, assist in helping determine the level of dangerousness he might pose?
At this point I think it's worth noting that at NAPO's recent AGM in Torquay, a motion advocating a campaign for the reintroduction of the straight Probation Order was defeated, broadly on the grounds that the public would find such an argument for what was essentially a welfare-type order difficult to understand. I think it would be fair to say that the government would not be likely to be sympathetic either at the present time!
Since famously becoming a 'law enforcement' agency some time ago, the mantra in probation has been 'resources follow risk.' I've never accepted this and in fact I'm on record as saying I think it's bollocks. A wise society would do well to acknowledge that some people's offending behaviour just doesn't fit neatly into any OASys ordained box. Sometimes there are just over-whelming welfare issues and if probation doesn't tackle them, which other agency will?
In the past and in such cases when courts felt stumped as what to do, there was always the option of the all-embracing generic Probation Order of up to 3 years. However, such has been the move away from this kind of mindset that apparently in West Yorkshire staff are currently forbidden from suggesting the modern equivalent Community Order with Supervision only. My hunch is that the Recorder of London will deal with the case appropriately having regard to welfare issues.
Thursday, 1 November 2012
Denial
Reading the latest edition of 'Inside Time' I was particularly struck by a piece concerning prisoners in denial at HMP Wakefield and written by Paul Sullivan. The article refers to the recent HMI report by Chief Inspector Nick Hardwick and his observation that:-
‘The most significant concern we identified at our last inspection in 2009 remained. Almost half the men at Wakefield were in denial about their offence – to some degree refusing to take responsibility for their offending. There were no programmes available at Wakefield to tackle the behaviour and attitudes of men in denial and, as a consequence, little effective work was done with them.’
Actually I'm not sure there are any programmes specifically designed for prisoners in denial within the prison system, but no doubt I will be corrected if I'm wrong. Anyway, Paul Sullivan suggests that it is beyond the legitimate remit of the Inspectorate to be 'publicly trying to discredit' prisoners who are in denial and that by raising the issue it 'impugns their integrity.'
I have to say this is a somewhat brave stance to take talking as it is about a Category A maximum security prison containing 750 men, most of whom have been convicted of the most serious sexual crimes it is possible to imagine. Most will be serving life sentences and therefore at such time as their tariff has been reached, judgements will have to be made by the Parole Board as to whether it is safe for release to be considered.
Particularly in relation to sexual offending, in my experience denial and minimisation are quite normal. In order to try and effect sentence progression, and in the end to be able to afford the public a degree of protection if release is granted, it is the legitimate business of probation and the prison authorities to challenge denial intelligently, but carefully. Of course history shows that there may be some innocent men wrongly convicted, but the vast majority simply do not want to confront their offending for what ever reason. The article goes on:-
"With the removal of the need for evidence in trials for alleged sexual offences (1994 Criminal Justice Act), the payment of massive compensation to accusers (even if there is no conviction or even trial), the burgeoning of police trawling and allegations of historic abuse, for which there is no defence or alibi after many decades, and the recent concerns of helpful evidence going ‘missing’ and failure to disclose evidence that would help the defence, the window for innocent men being convicted and locked up is open wide and, despite mountainous hurdles placed in the way of any men trying to have a conviction overturned many hundreds do succeed each year, - although NOMS will not admit to having a figure many support groups keep track."
Just as we are all still coming to terms with the sheer scale of Jimmy Savile's sexual offending and historic prosecutions of others may begin, although perhaps not intended, this article appears to verge on being both naive and apologistic towards sex offenders. HMI Nick Hardwick is spot on in drawing attention to this extremely challenging group within the prison system who cannot be allowed to simply deny their offending, 'do their time' and hope to be released to possibly offend again.
‘The most significant concern we identified at our last inspection in 2009 remained. Almost half the men at Wakefield were in denial about their offence – to some degree refusing to take responsibility for their offending. There were no programmes available at Wakefield to tackle the behaviour and attitudes of men in denial and, as a consequence, little effective work was done with them.’
Actually I'm not sure there are any programmes specifically designed for prisoners in denial within the prison system, but no doubt I will be corrected if I'm wrong. Anyway, Paul Sullivan suggests that it is beyond the legitimate remit of the Inspectorate to be 'publicly trying to discredit' prisoners who are in denial and that by raising the issue it 'impugns their integrity.'
I have to say this is a somewhat brave stance to take talking as it is about a Category A maximum security prison containing 750 men, most of whom have been convicted of the most serious sexual crimes it is possible to imagine. Most will be serving life sentences and therefore at such time as their tariff has been reached, judgements will have to be made by the Parole Board as to whether it is safe for release to be considered.
Particularly in relation to sexual offending, in my experience denial and minimisation are quite normal. In order to try and effect sentence progression, and in the end to be able to afford the public a degree of protection if release is granted, it is the legitimate business of probation and the prison authorities to challenge denial intelligently, but carefully. Of course history shows that there may be some innocent men wrongly convicted, but the vast majority simply do not want to confront their offending for what ever reason. The article goes on:-
"With the removal of the need for evidence in trials for alleged sexual offences (1994 Criminal Justice Act), the payment of massive compensation to accusers (even if there is no conviction or even trial), the burgeoning of police trawling and allegations of historic abuse, for which there is no defence or alibi after many decades, and the recent concerns of helpful evidence going ‘missing’ and failure to disclose evidence that would help the defence, the window for innocent men being convicted and locked up is open wide and, despite mountainous hurdles placed in the way of any men trying to have a conviction overturned many hundreds do succeed each year, - although NOMS will not admit to having a figure many support groups keep track."
Just as we are all still coming to terms with the sheer scale of Jimmy Savile's sexual offending and historic prosecutions of others may begin, although perhaps not intended, this article appears to verge on being both naive and apologistic towards sex offenders. HMI Nick Hardwick is spot on in drawing attention to this extremely challenging group within the prison system who cannot be allowed to simply deny their offending, 'do their time' and hope to be released to possibly offend again.
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
A Circular Argument
I can't help noticing that since gaining release, Ben Gunn is stirring up quite a lively debate about imprisonment over on his blogsite, whilst trying to deal with the inevitable trolls at the same time. This was always going to be a tricky exercise for any of us trying to put a slightly more nuanced angle on the age-old argument 'does prison work?' I know, because I've tackled the issue once or twice myself, as here in December 2010 and entitled 'So, Does Prison Work?
Actually in his recent piece Ben has brought up a specific topic I've been meaning to cover more thoroughly since briefly mentioning it here on 'Protecting the Public'. It's an organisation called Circles of Support and Accountability. As he says, the concept has it's roots in Canada as a faith-led community response to sex offenders who were serving long prison terms, but amazingly being released back into the community without support or supervision.
Sex offenders in particular are often highly isolated individuals lacking both social skills and legitimate community contacts. The idea is that each offender is offered the chance to have a small group of carefully selected volunteers, usually about six, and they form a 'circle' around that person through their time in prison and on into release back into the community.
As the name indicates, they not only offer support but accountability as well. In other words it's an additional level of supervision that is encouraged to continue long after any statutory involvement by probation or police ends. Unfortunately, as their website makes clear, the continuing Jimmy Saville revelations is leading to some public misunderstanding as to the charity's focus on preventing further offending, as well as support for former perpetrators.
It will be obvious that Circles is not a 'magic bullet' solution as it can only ever be considered an option where an offender fully admits culpability and is willing to entertain changes in their attitude and behaviour towards offending. I don't want to unduly depress readers, but in my experience this sadly renders Circles inappropriate in many cases as levels of denial amongst sex offenders as a group is significant. Equally in my view it cannot replace imprisonment as a punishment, but can play a major part in effective rehabilitation where an offender accepts their offending and is willing to cooperate.
Having said that, Circles is proving beyond doubt that this restorative justice concept is a good one for the right offender and reconviction rates are remarkably low for those who have been part of the pilot projects so far. Without doubt it is an idea that will develop, possibly into other areas of offending and it is being enthusiastically supported by all relevant criminal justice agencies.
This shouldn't really surprise us as the underlying ethos is completely in accord with the humanitarian and religious principles that gave rise to the probation service in the first place. Here in the UK it's particularly noteworthy that Circles enjoys the very active support of the Society of Friends - or Quakers to you and me.
Actually in his recent piece Ben has brought up a specific topic I've been meaning to cover more thoroughly since briefly mentioning it here on 'Protecting the Public'. It's an organisation called Circles of Support and Accountability. As he says, the concept has it's roots in Canada as a faith-led community response to sex offenders who were serving long prison terms, but amazingly being released back into the community without support or supervision.
Sex offenders in particular are often highly isolated individuals lacking both social skills and legitimate community contacts. The idea is that each offender is offered the chance to have a small group of carefully selected volunteers, usually about six, and they form a 'circle' around that person through their time in prison and on into release back into the community.
As the name indicates, they not only offer support but accountability as well. In other words it's an additional level of supervision that is encouraged to continue long after any statutory involvement by probation or police ends. Unfortunately, as their website makes clear, the continuing Jimmy Saville revelations is leading to some public misunderstanding as to the charity's focus on preventing further offending, as well as support for former perpetrators.
It will be obvious that Circles is not a 'magic bullet' solution as it can only ever be considered an option where an offender fully admits culpability and is willing to entertain changes in their attitude and behaviour towards offending. I don't want to unduly depress readers, but in my experience this sadly renders Circles inappropriate in many cases as levels of denial amongst sex offenders as a group is significant. Equally in my view it cannot replace imprisonment as a punishment, but can play a major part in effective rehabilitation where an offender accepts their offending and is willing to cooperate.
Having said that, Circles is proving beyond doubt that this restorative justice concept is a good one for the right offender and reconviction rates are remarkably low for those who have been part of the pilot projects so far. Without doubt it is an idea that will develop, possibly into other areas of offending and it is being enthusiastically supported by all relevant criminal justice agencies.
This shouldn't really surprise us as the underlying ethos is completely in accord with the humanitarian and religious principles that gave rise to the probation service in the first place. Here in the UK it's particularly noteworthy that Circles enjoys the very active support of the Society of Friends - or Quakers to you and me.
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
What a Wonderful World
A letter in The Guardian recently caught my eye. It was from a group of academics at Swansea University quoting their research that demonstrated a convincing link between the skill of a probation officer and the reconviction rates of those being supervised.
Absolute music to my ears, but even I'm not sure how typical Jersey offenders are, or indeed their small but dedicated team of officers. In an ideal world, if you were setting out to prove such an interesting hypothesis, wouldn't you choose a slightly larger and dare I say challenging Service to look at?
However I did enjoy a good root around the website for Jersey Probation and After Care Service - when did you last hear the term aftercare? - and it was pure nostalgia! They are still called probation officers not offender managers, have 'clients' not 'offenders' and are still appointed as Officers of the Court. Many are social work trained and the whole Service is a blissfully OASys-free zone.
Social Enquiry Reports - yes remember them - are still written in the time-honoured way that no doubt tells a coherent story and that allows the character of both the author and subject to shine through. Oh I'm going all misty-eyed just at the thought of what life was like before OASys ruined everything. To be honest I am so envious of these officers who do not have to waste so much valuable time filling in all that computer crap. No wonder they have time to work their magic!
Please also note that Community Service is still just that and there's not an orange tabbard in sight as those sentenced labour on socially useful and imaginative projects. There is a Restorative Justice system with a 100% satisfaction rate and Youth Justice is still part of the Service. Even prisoners are allocated an officer at six months, not the usual 12 months back here on the UK mainland.
It all seems so surreal - a Chief for a Service that in total might fill a smallish room and is allowed to jet off round the world to places like Norway and Australia in order to spread the word of probation, Jersey-style. What a wonderful world we live in!
Absolute music to my ears, but even I'm not sure how typical Jersey offenders are, or indeed their small but dedicated team of officers. In an ideal world, if you were setting out to prove such an interesting hypothesis, wouldn't you choose a slightly larger and dare I say challenging Service to look at?
However I did enjoy a good root around the website for Jersey Probation and After Care Service - when did you last hear the term aftercare? - and it was pure nostalgia! They are still called probation officers not offender managers, have 'clients' not 'offenders' and are still appointed as Officers of the Court. Many are social work trained and the whole Service is a blissfully OASys-free zone.
Social Enquiry Reports - yes remember them - are still written in the time-honoured way that no doubt tells a coherent story and that allows the character of both the author and subject to shine through. Oh I'm going all misty-eyed just at the thought of what life was like before OASys ruined everything. To be honest I am so envious of these officers who do not have to waste so much valuable time filling in all that computer crap. No wonder they have time to work their magic!
Please also note that Community Service is still just that and there's not an orange tabbard in sight as those sentenced labour on socially useful and imaginative projects. There is a Restorative Justice system with a 100% satisfaction rate and Youth Justice is still part of the Service. Even prisoners are allocated an officer at six months, not the usual 12 months back here on the UK mainland.
It all seems so surreal - a Chief for a Service that in total might fill a smallish room and is allowed to jet off round the world to places like Norway and Australia in order to spread the word of probation, Jersey-style. What a wonderful world we live in!
Monday, 29 October 2012
Nice Work if You Can Get It
The Work Programme is a government flagship policy and can't really be allowed to fail. After all it was only last week that new Justice Secretary Chris Grayling was citing the fantastic success of the payment by results scheme as reason for rolling it out as fast as possible across the whole criminal justice sector.
Unfortunately for him and the government though, Channel 4 News have got wind of the fact that it isn't working. It would appear that A4E have come no where near their minimum target of a 5.5% success rate in getting people into work on the programme. In fact it seems that, despite being paid handsomely with taxpayers money, they actually did worse than if people were just left to their own devices in order to find their own job.
In what can only be described as a disastrous interview on Channel 4 News last Wednesday, former managing director Emma Harrison could only repeat endlessly that 'the figures are wrong' without being able to quote any correct ones.
She was clearly unprepared for the interview and I can only assume that the current management team must have been collectively hiding behind the sofa, hoping it was all a bad dream. In what was a public relations nightmare, as majority shareholder, it turns out that she has rewarded herself a further £250,000 dividend payment since stepping down.
Now there is a very well-known saying that 'bad figures always take longer to add up' so I think it can be safely assumed that much midnight oil is being burnt at DWP HQ in order to put as much positive spin as possible on some very crap numbers due for release shortly.
Unfortunately for him and the government though, Channel 4 News have got wind of the fact that it isn't working. It would appear that A4E have come no where near their minimum target of a 5.5% success rate in getting people into work on the programme. In fact it seems that, despite being paid handsomely with taxpayers money, they actually did worse than if people were just left to their own devices in order to find their own job.
In what can only be described as a disastrous interview on Channel 4 News last Wednesday, former managing director Emma Harrison could only repeat endlessly that 'the figures are wrong' without being able to quote any correct ones.
She was clearly unprepared for the interview and I can only assume that the current management team must have been collectively hiding behind the sofa, hoping it was all a bad dream. In what was a public relations nightmare, as majority shareholder, it turns out that she has rewarded herself a further £250,000 dividend payment since stepping down.
Now there is a very well-known saying that 'bad figures always take longer to add up' so I think it can be safely assumed that much midnight oil is being burnt at DWP HQ in order to put as much positive spin as possible on some very crap numbers due for release shortly.
Friday, 26 October 2012
Time to Register a Spoilt Vote
My piece the other day entitled 'A Dogs's Breakfast' about the impending farcical election for Police and Crime Commissioners seems to have struck a chord, well certainly with my mates in the pub. As we all know, major issues of the day are widely discussed in such institutions, where still available, and my suggestion to spoil ballot papers on November 15th was enthusiastically received.
If my circle of friends and acquaintances can be deemed as in any way typical of other people nationwide, despite the arrival of the government leaflet, there remains widespread ignorance as to what PCC's are all about and whether spending up to £100,000 on each one was a good idea or not. There is particular anger that absolutely no information about the candidates will be forthcoming and it can only be found online or as a result of telephone enquiry.
Well it emerges that the same young policy wonks that thought up the whole barmy idea at the Tory Party think tank Reform have some more brilliant ideas as to how the remit of Police and Crime Commissioners can be extended into other areas of public life. According to their latest report, they are suggesting that PCC's are given authority over commissioning probation, fire and ambulance services. They see this as a brilliant opportunity to extend the privatisation of all these services.
There is only one way in which we, the Electorate, can register our disdain for this whole sad miserable piece of political gimmickry and that is by taking the unprecedented step of spoiling our ballot papers en masse.
If my circle of friends and acquaintances can be deemed as in any way typical of other people nationwide, despite the arrival of the government leaflet, there remains widespread ignorance as to what PCC's are all about and whether spending up to £100,000 on each one was a good idea or not. There is particular anger that absolutely no information about the candidates will be forthcoming and it can only be found online or as a result of telephone enquiry.
Well it emerges that the same young policy wonks that thought up the whole barmy idea at the Tory Party think tank Reform have some more brilliant ideas as to how the remit of Police and Crime Commissioners can be extended into other areas of public life. According to their latest report, they are suggesting that PCC's are given authority over commissioning probation, fire and ambulance services. They see this as a brilliant opportunity to extend the privatisation of all these services.
There is only one way in which we, the Electorate, can register our disdain for this whole sad miserable piece of political gimmickry and that is by taking the unprecedented step of spoiling our ballot papers en masse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)