Making Sense Of It All

I guess we've all got to try and make sense of what happened on Thursday, why it happened and where things go from here. It's certainly a day to remember and probably the most significant domestic political event in most of our lifetimes.

For over 30 years I've acted as Presiding Officer at the same Polling Station in an edge of city community now comprised of the white working-class, students and immigrants from many nations. It's a harmonious community, has always been a safe Labour seat and over the years I've become pretty familiar with regular faces and voters grumbles such as 'we've had no leaflets' or 'no one's been round'. 

At the general election last year I'd already noticed that I'd lost nearly half of my register because students are no longer 'auto-enrolled' at their university accommodation and this time most had gone down for the summer anyway. We'd been warned to expect a high turnout and queues, but what really struck me was the number of people I'd never seen before and obviously from the long-term settled white working-class community. Something had galvanised them to turn out and vote.

To be perfectly frank I'd found the campaign a universally unedifying and disgraceful spectacle on the part of both sides. I really do not take kindly to being deliberately scared witless by my own government and treated to a succession of bullying threats of fiscal carnage by an endless number of highly-paid, mostly men in government jobs and suits telling me that effectively I'd be f*cking mad to vote anything but 'remain'. The figures were obviously being plucked from the etha and the official policy of predicting armaggedon eventually proved counter-productive to me and I suspect many others.

Strangely, I didn't find the other side quite so offensive, possibly because I decided early-on to ignore all the stuff about immigration and instead try and make my mind up on the basis of other factors such as politics both domestic and European, together with what I suppose might be generally termed 'sovereignty'. Each one of us had to make an extremely difficult judgement-call on a deceptively simple question and I suspect in the process just edited-out those aspects we didn't feel important or relevant or distasteful and zoomed-in on what we felt was.

John Ward is always worth reading:-

Whatever the result today (and the one clear signal from the polls is that not one of the companies involved has a clue which way it will go) it will not have been democracy in any recognisable form.

Proper democracy and genuinely free voting can only be said to have taken place when:

• The electorate is genuinely informed about the issues and their relative significance
• The voters have not been threatened or bullied in any way
• The vote has been called willingly by the Government of the day
• All the previously agreed rules and regulations have been observed by those on either side of the argument(s).

If anyone still believes the electorate knew which way was up on this, the second Referendum to be held about Britain’s EU membership, then they simple aren’t informed about just how uninformed the average voter was.

I have sighed, slapped my forehead, sworn at the television, and at times laughed out loud at the opinions expressed – and cynically encouraged – about, for example, how the UK will be frozen out of trade, how the EU can be reformed from the inside, why we must be safer attached to the biggest basket case outside Brazil, and how we should not be voting in the same way as people we dislike. Some of the ludicrous hopes and laughable aspirations have suggested that a great many Brits simple cannot extrapolate or discern conclusions from general events and governance behaviours any more.

And of course, the cancer of our age – ideology that was past its sell-by date long before best-before was invented – evokes denial on a delusional scale.

But the real culprit dissuading any exercise of rational assessment or emotional identification has, as always, been the disinformation dished out by mass market media. I have always found it amusing that while hacks call my profession ‘hidden persuaders’, the facts we used to persuade consumers had to be stood up using field tests and research data. No such onerous insistence on the Truth exists to worry the Fourth Easte: “never let the truth get in the way of a good story” as one apocryphal journo is alleged to have long ago asserted.

Nobody on either side of the debate has so much as managed to attach any glory to itself on this dimension….let alone be covered in it. I could, right now, pull out seventeen completely misleading articles and ‘news’ items quite deliberately glossing over contrary evidence in order to suggest bogus outcomes and malign motives. Twas ever thus, people say – but today no more than half a dozen reprobates with varied business agendas control how some 80% of all Western editorial is filtered. The abolition of Net Neutrality will make that situation even more distorted; but nobody gives a monkey’s about it, so I long ago gave up posting on the subject.

The spread and digestion of information in 2016 is nothing more than the reassurance of the somnambulant by the sociopathic. It causes direct democracy to change, imperceptibly over time, into passive bondage.

--oo00oo--

Essentially it was an impossible task, confirmed in my view by the relative closeness of the result and inability of most commentators to predict the outcome. But one of the most unedifying and unpleasant aspects of this whole bloody mess has been the widespread and arrogant assumption by the political class that there was only one 'right' way to vote and anyone who was for Brexit was clearly either a racist, had been hoodwinked or was just plain thick. There could not be a more clear illustration of the class divide and it was indeed the working-class who have been so often patronised and ignored in the past who revolted on Thursday and stuck two fingers up to the political class.

Some readers will recall that I've mentioned the urgent need for electoral reform several times on this blog and each time I think it's fair to say the issue has been dismissed as irrelevant. I would venture to suggest that the failure to address this utterly untenable democratic deficit was probably one of the key reasons we've ended up in the mess we now find ourselves in. Whether you agree or not with the views of groups like UKIP or the Green Party, I find it arrogantly contemptable that the political class simply dismisses the case for electoral reform as unimportant and unnecessary. More worryingly, many seem to feel that ensuring these groups are not represented is actually best.  

Well, I believe this arrogant view was a significant contributing factor in the result that was delivered on Thursday when the usually disenfranchised realised that this time every vote would actually count and they duly turned out and made a protest. Not the best way to cast a vote on such an important issue, but how else do they get the attention of the political ruling class?

In trying to pull together some thoughts on what has happened and why, I feel the need to comment on some more arrogance, this time from the new President of the EU. I think I heard him threatening the UK on the day before the vote and yesterday I heard him demand that effectively we 'f*ck off' at the earliest opportunity. He strikes me as a most unpleasant bully, but of course as the top guy in Brussels we must presume he is representative of the club we are expected to be happy being a member of?            

This from the Telegraph:-

Jean-Claude Juncker's most outrageous political quotations

The former Luxembourg prime minister expected to become European Commission president tomorrow has a pragmatic approach to politics, the press and the public – and is rarely afraid to show it:-

On Greece's economic meltdown in 2011
"When it becomes serious, you have to lie."

On EU monetary policy
"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates"

On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty
“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”

On French referendum over EU constitution
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”

On the introduction of the euro
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

On eurozone economic policy and democracy
“We all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it”

--oo00oo--

Then there was all the stuff about a vote for Brexit would just mean an even worse Tory government. I notice Ian Lawrence, General Secretary of Napo had something to say about this yesterday in his blog:-

Britain Divided?

“See EU later David”, is about the only bit of humour that I can muster this morning after what is probably the most seismic shift in British politics that I have witnessed in my lifetime, and no doubt there will be many of our members who share that view.

Given the size of the vote and the fact that the result reflected a range of opinion from across the political spectrum, it’s probably worth saying that there will be many trade unionists who took the Brexit line on the basis that they believed that once we are out of the European Union we can get on with the essential business of rebuilding Britain’s manufacturing base, nationalising our railways, postal services, utilities and energy companies and making much needed investment in public services and the people who provide them. Taking this further, those comrades I have spoken to have passionately explained how we can protect our NHS from the dreaded TTIP or equivalent trade agreements, how we can better develop our schools under public control, and start to provide workplace security and decent wages and pensions for all.

I don’t suppose any of us would disagree with those objectives; but, as I have been reminded by those who told me why they were voting to remain: it’s not the agenda that we were ever going to get under this current government. Indeed, today’s news of David Cameron’s intended resignation and the prospect of a new prime minister being installed with a mandate to push on even harder with an already devastating austerity programme can only fill everyone who believes in a progressive socialist agenda with total dread. 

--oo00oo--

Finally, isn't this the opportunity for the left to take advantage of the turmoil in the Tory Party and sort itself out? This by Slavoj Zizek is taken from Newsweek:-

COULD BREXIT BREATHE NEW LIFE INTO LEFT-WING POLITICS?

Europe is caught into a vicious cycle, oscillating between the Brussels technocracy unable to drag it out of inertia, and the popular rage against this inertia, a rage appropriated by new more radical Leftist movements but primarily by Rightist populism. The Brexit referendum moved along the lines of this new opposition, which is why there was something terribly wrong with it. Look at the strange bedfellows that found themselves together in the Brexit camp: right-wing “patriots,” populist nationalists fuelled by the fear of immigrants, mixed with desperate working class rage—is such a mixture of patriotic racism with the rage of “ordinary people” not the ideal ground for a new form of Fascism?

The intensity of the emotional investment into the referendum should not deceive us, the choice offered obfuscated the true questions: how to fight trade “agreements” like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which present a real threat to popular sovereignty and how to confront ecological catastrophes and economic imbalances which breed new poverty and migrations. The choice of Brexit means a serious setback for these true struggles—it's enough to bear in mind what an important argument for Brexit the “refugee threat” was. The Brexit referendum is the ultimate proof that ideology (in the good old Marxist sense of “false consciousness”) is alive and well in our societies.

When Stalin was asked in the late 1920s which political variation is worse, the Right one or the Leftist one, he snapped back: “They are both worse!” Was it not the same with the choice British voters were confronting? Remain was “worse” since it meant persisting in the inertia that keeps Europe mired down. Exit was “worse” since it made changing nothing look desirable.

In the days before the referendum, there was a pseudo-profound thought circulating in our media: “whatever the result, EU will never be the same, it will be irreparably damaged.” But the opposite is true: nothing really changed, except that the inertia of Europe became impossible to ignore. Europe will again waste time in long negotiations among EU members that will continue to make any large-scale political project unfeasible. This is what those who oppose Brexit didn’t see—shocked, they now complain about the “irrationality” of the Brexit voters, ignoring the desperate need for change that the vote made palpable.

The confusion that underlies the Brexit referendum is not limited to Europe—it is part of a much larger process of the crisis of “manufacturing democratic consent” in our societies, of the growing gap between political institutions and popular rage, the rage which gave birth to Trump as well as to Sanders in the US. Signs of chaos are everywhere—the recent debate on gun control in the US Congress descended into a sit-in protest by the Democrats—is it time to despair?

Recall Mao Ze Dong's old motto: “Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” A crisis is to be taken seriously, without illusions, but also as a chance to be fully exploited. Although crises are painful and dangerous, they are the terrain on which battles have to be waged and won. Is there not a struggle also in heaven, is the heaven also not divided—and does the ongoing confusion not offer a unique chance to react to the need for a radical change in a more appropriate way, with a project that will break the vicious cycle of EU technocracy and nationalist populism? The true division of our heaven is not between anemic technocracy and nationalist passions, but between their vicious cycle and a new pan-European project which will addresses the true challenges that humanity confronts today.

Now that, in the echo of the Brexit victory, calls for other exits from EU are multiplying all around Europe, the situation calls for such a project—who will grab the chance? Unfortunately, not the existing Left which is well-known for its breathtaking ability to never miss a chance to miss a chance.

Probation and Europe

Vivian Geiran, Director of the Irish Probation Service (a former Probation Officer) delivered the Nineteenth Annual Bill McWilliams Memorial lecture which was held on a rain sodden Monday 20th June at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University with the grandiloquent title of 'Penal Reform and Probation in Europe: Positive Change of Direction, 'Nudges to the Rudder' or 'Steady as she goes'. Acting as the Interlocutor was the estimable Probation academic Professor Rob Canton, readers might be interested in some edited highlights from this event (full text of which will be available in due course).

The tone of the delivery was measured, informative and upbeat, whilst acknowledging the malign impact of some of the more destructive political interventions that have reshaped probation which colleagues will be painfully familiar with in England and Wales, he offered a broad brush overview of developments across European Justice areas. The Irish Probation Service has statutory oversight of around 10k 'offenders' and 14 prisons, but still derives its probation heritage from what he noted as this country being the 'cradle of European Probation' with a resolute indebtedness to the shared history of probation centred on the 1907 Probation of Offenders Act, which still holds a central place in framing the core relational elements of probation 'advise, assist and befriend' and which had he opined had 'stood the test of time'. He alluded to the chilling effects of political interventions in penal matters often prompted by 'high profile offences' - presently in the Irish context that of gang related violence in Dublin - which often invited robust, toughened penal measures that 'chewed up' more evidenced informed approaches to community safety and more established and confident supervisory oversight.

Citing some of the latest academic literature on best practice, penal overreach (mass supervision!) service user participation and voice, EU Victims directive and evaluation studies, the centrality of the connectivity of Probation globally (one of the evident spin offs of which was his references to European capitals he had visited in his Council of Europe role to bolster local probation services - which mileage might make travel writer Simon Calder blush!). 

The continuing durability of the term 'Probation' was alluded to - not in any rheumy eyed nostalgic throwback - but simply because it was so widely adopted and service users after many years of endless iterations of Offender Management speak - still refer to being 'on probation'. Although there exist many diverse organisational manifestations of how Probation systems operate across Europe (with the exception of Scotland and Slovenia!).

Drawing on other sources of good practice and insight from what he called 'strangers to practice' to support the probation endeavour - the redemptive recognition of 'second chances' and the here to stay place of EM existing alongside well argued supervisory packages, informed by the need to exploit social media (as we know it, Jim!) Aided by a grounded criminal justice consensus 'quite revolution' inspired by the energetic front line promotion of what works - to 'how to work' - that points towards the harm arising from over-imprisonment, recognises the place of hurt and suffering from offending, the centrality of relationships, proper investment in stressed communities (without ameliorative social policy measures much of the above becomes Pollyanna musings!) and how contingent events can unsettle practice and the perennial trope of effective and fearlessly engaged leadership (who now speaks for probation in the corridors of power?) also featured in his address.

Whilst solidarity and integration are fine sounding concepts (there was limited reference to the essential role of trade unions in the wider penal framework or judicial engagement!) the sense I drew from a detailed and nuanced presentation was that at the Trans-European level there are a number of well resourced and valuable probation led initiatives (readers can find link to CEP) - an organisation that was shaped at the outset by Napo - as one well respected former colleague noted in the Q&A session. By widening our field of vision to encompass insights from continental jurisdictions (pre/post EU referendum!) a rich resource of criminal and social justice practice may well offer a more optimistic lens from which to view the current dismal fragmentation evident in the dismantling of Probation (its death -knell!) under the present NPS/CRC arrangements. 

The 'rehabilitative green shoots' that offer this more upbeat scenario can be easily undermined by what Rob Canton in responding to the talk noted as a return to 'the auction of cruelty' evident when populist politicians seeking short-term crude electoral advantage promote 'tough' politicised penal measures. The corrupting influence of expansive profit-driven commercial relationships in probation - (Blog passim!) can be offset by promoting more rounded personalised narratives from service users to a wider public audience on the everyday challenges of positive change and reduced victimisation - valorising the role of Human Rights in penal policy, again within the overarching EU/UN justice framework, there are a dizzying number of such policy directives, but these seem sadly peripheral to those at the front line, were also flagged up.

Although the number of attendees (which including some esteemed former speakers) appeared to be down on previous years - especially evident in the few practitioners present - maybe this event could fall within accredited training! A 20th Bill McWilliams Memorial lecture is planned for 2017 (as is the Third World Congress of Probation in Tokyo). For hard pressed colleagues struggling to cope in an unforgiving probation landscape captured in many of Jim's blog posts, such conferences may well seem somewhat remote and detached, but remaining steadfast to the mission of probation, articulated so well in the life and work of Bill McWilliams, and through his legacy the continuing viability of the lecture series, means that speakers (whether professional or academic) retain a proper focus in their various presentations on how probation from its inception, worked towards reducing the harms of crime on communities, in this talk across continental Europe. 

Can they continue to invigorate a progressive approach towards more inclusive, restorative and evidenced informed practice. Can such engagement at the local, national and international level with practitioners, service users, policy makers and communities be sustained. Maybe next years lecture, to borrow the nautical metaphor, might once again nudge the rudder - but in which direction will the future of probation go?

Mike Guilfoyle
Associate Member Napo.

Inspiration

On the day of the Big Decision, here's something hopefully non-controversial and that might give food for thought.  

I continue to find it a sad fact that there is so little to feel inspired by in the world of probation nowadays, in stark comparison to my thoughts about the past I have to say. Many of us with long memories seriously bemoan a previous bifurcation, that with our social work roots and so it was with great interest and not a little reflection that I noticed the following on the 'In defence of youth work' website. Sadly I didn't know the guy, but wish I had:- 

Bob Holman R.I.P. – an inspiration, even a legend by Tony Taylor

The world of social, youth and community work has lost one of its most inspiring activists with the death of Bob Holman. His 1981 ‘Kids at the Door’ became a classic text, telling the story of his first five years on the Southdown estate in Bath, where he lived, his home the hub of his work with young people. It is a moving tale of a person-centred, process-led practice, which confronted poverty and inequality. Bob had given up his post as professor of social administration at the University of Bath in 1976, declaring that he wasn’t much good at admin and that community workers ought to live in the communities they sought to serve. He stood by this principle when he moved in the late 1980’s to live on the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow, where he was a member of the Baptist church. Among his heroes were Keir Hardie, the principal founder of the Labour Party and George Lansbury, the great social reformer, both Christian pacifists and committed supporters of women’s suffrage.

In a piece on Keir Hardie, Labour founder’s views on equality still ring true for public services, written in 2010, Bob commented,

Voluntary organisations are now seen as public services, and the major political parties favour charities taking over more of the state’s duties. I doubt if Hardie would have agreed. He did not deny that charities did good work, but he saw them as maintaining an unfair society. He criticised wealthy philanthropists whose factories paid low wages, and accused one of harming workers and then paying a charity to give the homeless a bed. Better, he said, to improve society and “to dispense with Christian charity”.

Today, voluntary bodies are much improved and often employ skilled and committed staff, but Hardie’s criticisms still have some relevance. Philanthropists may give generously to charities of their choice, which allows them great power over who should be helped. The affluent determine the nature of service.
Further, some charities are run by committees of the wealthy and powerful. Top directors of some charities, while decrying poverty and inequality, may be paid the kind of excessive salaries that reinforce these evils.

Hardie argued that the state should take responsibility for essential services. In 1887, he stood in a by-election in Scotland. His address called for the nationalisation of land, the abolition of the House of Lords, and a reduction in the money spent on the royals. He ended: “I ask you therefore to return to parliament a man of yourselves who, being poor, can feel for the poor.”

Speaking of the monarchy Bob Holman declined the offer of an MBE, arguing,

I am an egalitarian. I believe that a socially and materially equal society is more united, content and just. The royal honours system is designed to promote differences of status. It is made clear that those who are made knights or dames are socially superior to those given CBEs, OBEs or MBEs. But all are socially above those without honours. These imposed differences hinder the co-operation, interaction and fellowship, which are the characteristics of equality. Refusing a royal honour is a small step but one in the right direction.

Finally, in 2000, he wrote ‘Kids at the Door Revisited’, in which he interviews 51 of the people he related to during the Southdown project, reflecting on the impact or otherwise of those rooted relationships. In a world where the notion of impact is tossed around as if it’s somehow new and innovative, Bob’s self-critical exploration of his and their stories ought to be required reading for those, who peddle the myth that in the past we didn’t give a toss about the quality or accountability of our practice. The book is on the shelf above me as I pen these inadequate words. I’ll take it down and read afresh this weekend as a way of honouring the memory of an outstanding bloke.

See also an obituary in the Guardian and an interview with him from 2014, Leading by example in the fight against inequality.

I’ll leave the last word to Bob.

I’ve lived in deprived areas for nearly 40 years and I don’t think I’ve ever seen poverty or inequality as bad as it is now. And it’s made even worse by this whipping up of feeling against the poor. Most poor people are now in work. I have a friend who’s 59 and has always worked. He’s been on the minimum wage since it was introduced, but it’s so little. He has only one week’s holiday a year and he’s in debt. He’s had to take out loans. There are now three loan sharks and a pawnbrokers in our row of shops in Easterhouse. This is a real indication of what life is like. My church started a weekly cafe in response to the crisis. It offers free drinks and fruit and cheap snacks. We are meeting people in severe financial need. Citizens Advice send in workers once a fortnight to help those sanctioned. I’ve had a friend sanctioned for six months. He had absolutely no money for six months. Ten years ago this would have been unbelievable. But even Labour didn’t protest. One of the services we run from Fare is an annual holiday. We take youngsters to Lincolnshire, it’s all in tents. The holiday costs £140 a week for everything – transport, food, trips. We’ve run it for years but two years ago people couldn’t afford to pay so we cut it to £70 and raised the rest of the money. Last year people couldn’t pay £70. Never before have parents found it so difficult to pay for their kids’ holidays. This is the inequality. One thing we can do is to make sure these kids go on holiday. It’s the Elastoplast level we are down to now. It’s not changing society but it’s justice. There are people who are really struggling. These people are my friends. They’re not my clients.

--oo00oo--

Bob Holman obituary

Bob Holman, who has died aged 79 after suffering from motor neurone disease, earned a unique place in social work, when, in 1976, he resigned his professorship in social administration at Bath University to become a community worker on the city’s deprived Southdown estate. He saw his affluence and position as inconsistent with his Christian faith. He and his wife, Annette, and their two children, Ruth and David, moved from a comfortable middle-class area in the city to a home next to the estate and he started the project where he then worked.

Ironically, this thrust him into far greater prominence than university life afforded, as he published widely to propagate ideas forged by his experiences. His advocacy, as well as the way he lived his life in a disadvantaged community, earned him many admirers, within and outside social work; some saw him as almost a secular saint.

As an academic Bob had published the groundbreaking Trading in Children: A Study of Private Fostering (1973), but, in his new life, he produced a veritable flood of books, articles and letters to newspapers. Many of his books had a pleasing combination of observation, anecdote and research.

To reduce poverty, he believed, was not enough. Inequality, too, had to be tackled. He highlighted the desperate struggles of those with whom he worked and lived, but he also emphasised their strengths and ability to run their own lives. The single parents and unemployed people who ran the projects were for Bob evidence of the possibilities of working-class collective spirit and individual integrity.

After a decade in Bath, in 1987 he went to live and work on the vast and deprived Easterhouse estate in Glasgow. He always wanted to show what could be done to motivate and involve people and bring communities together. Bob spurned any distinction between himself and other residents, calling himself a “resourceful friend”. His daily work involved filling in social security forms, accompany young people to court or helping a neighbour to raise a loan for a new cooker.

He was born in Ilford, Essex, the middle child of Robert Bones, a removal man, and his wife, Lily (nee Simms). He later adopted the maiden name of his grandmother. Bob’s primary education was disrupted by evacuation, of which he was to write a history; in his case, it involved stays in Surrey and Herefordshire. Following grammar school and national service in the RAF, he studied history and economics at University College London and transferred to the London School of Economics for his certificate in social administration.

From 1961 to 1966 he was a child care officer with Hertfordshire county council, also becoming a tutor in child care. He then held lectureships in social work and social administration at Birmingham and Glasgow universities. It was in Birmingham where the reality of widespread poverty dawned on him. At Bath university, though, he decided he was ill-fitted to be a professor: he disliked administration and not working directly with those he cared about.

Bob’s attitudes to poverty and inequality and criticism of those whom he characterised as running a “welfare industry” – highly paid heads of voluntary organisations and directors of social services – were profoundly shaped by his Christian faith, which he had come to as a teenager. He saw in the life of George Lansbury, the MP for Poplar in London, pacifist, Labour leader and cabinet minister, who lived simply in his East End constituency, the epitome of the Christian socialism that he, too, sought to practise. Holman wrote a biography, Good Old George (1990). Later there came other labours of love: a biography of Keir Hardie, and another, Woodbine Willie (2012), about the pacifist clergyman and poet Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy.

In 1989 Bob helped to establish Family Action in Rogerfield and Easterhouse (Fare), a grassroots organisation, especially for families and young people. It encourages neighbours to work with one another; to keep young people out of the care and criminal justice systems; and to lift people’s aspirations, while trying to tackle anti-social behaviour.

Bob’s enemy’s enemy became his friend when, always a socialist, he developed a friendship with Iain Duncan Smith, then Tory leader, who on a visit to Easterhouse seemingly underwent something of a conversion to the cause of social justice, after voting against every progressive measure of the Labour governments. The friendship did not survive Duncan Smith’s role in the Coalition and Conservative cabinets.

Although he allegedly retired in 2004 and moved elsewhere in Glasgow, partly to look after his grandsons, Bob continued to write, speak at conferences, undertake voluntary neighbourhood work and act as visiting professor at the universities of Glasgow and Cardiff.

He turned down an MBE and, asked about collaborating on a biography, said: “If I have achieved anything, I hope it is seen in other people, not me.”

In the aftermath of the Tories’ return to office and Labour’s obliteration in Scotland in May 2015, Bob wrote to me: “I can’t do much in politics. I am going to write less ... After that – in the days I’ve got left – I want to concentrate on local individuals. We cannot take them out of poverty but we can provide people with some togetherness and show that we respect, not blame them.”

Within two months, that time left had shortened with the diagnosis of motor neurone disease. Bob is survived by Annette, his children, David and Ruth, two grandsons, Lucas and Nathan, his sister, Janet, and brother, John.

• Robert Holman (Robert Bones), academic and community worker, born 8 November 1936; died 15 June 2016

Every Vote Counts

Following the big BBC Debate last night, I thought I'd have just one more go at saying something about the extraordinary political machinations of the last month or so. I actually started writing this a couple of weeks ago having watched some 'vox pops' interviews on tv and the penny dropping as to something very interesting developing. 

'I'm voting Labour' said the man stopped in the street and asked for his opinion on the EU referendum. I suppose it made me feel uncomfortable because the piece would inevitably lead to the poor guy being ridiculed, but I now realise it was a graphic illustration of something quite scary indeed, the class divide. This referendum has brought into sharp focus some very unpleasant aspects of our society and some very uncomfortable truths about our 'democracy' and why we could well be making a momentous decision to leave the EU tomorrow. 

At this point it's probably worth reminding ourselves how we got into this mess in the first place. Basically, the rise of UKIP so put the wind up David Cameron prior to the 2015 general election that he felt obliged to promise a referendum in order to try and spike their guns. Despite this, UKIP won a staggering 4 million votes, but the disgraceful workings of our first-past-the-post electoral system delivered them just one MP - job done! How this is called democracy beats me - what if they were 4 million Green Party votes? - but having surprisingly won a 12 seat majority, Cameron realised this was one promise he had to deliver on, hence the referendum.    

It's all been very carefully planned of course and by now 'Project Fear' was supposed to have thoroughly scared us all witless by the extremely well-informed and sensible-looking Remain campaign, so how is it that the opinion polls began to show that the Leave campaign was getting ahead? I think the answer lies in our historic class-based tribal politics, enshrined and perpetuated by the first-past-the-post electoral system. 

It's the system that enabled the closet Tory Tony Blair to gain pre-eminence, move Labour to the right and lay the foundations for extending the privatisation agenda, but kept in power by the loyal white working-class vote. As a group they were cynically used whilst he worked on gaining a greater chunk of the middle-class vote. Of course it's the system that delivered a smoking ban, so loved by the middle-class, whilst the working-class were robbed of their right to a cig and a drink in comfort at either a pub or a bingo hall. It's about beer v wine; North v South; cosmopolitan v provincial.   

This by Lisa McKenzie in the Guardian:-

Brexit is the only way the working class can change anything

From my research I would argue that the referendum debate within working-class communities is not about immigration, despite the rhetoric. It is about precarity and fear. As a group of east London women told me: “I’m sick of being called a racist because I worry about my own mum and my own child,” and “I don’t begrudge anyone a roof who needs it but we can’t manage either.”

Over the past 30 years there has been a sustained attack on working-class people, their identities, their work and their culture by Westminster politics and the media bubble around it. Consequently they have stopped listening to politicians and to Westminster and they are doing what every politician fears: they are using their own experiences in judging what is working for and against them.

In the last few weeks of the campaign the rhetoric has ramped up and the blame game started. If we leave the EU it will be the fault of the “stupid”, “ignorant”, and “racist” working class. Whenever working-class people have tried to talk about the effects of immigration on their lives, shouting “backward” and “racist” has become a middle-class pastime.

Working-class people in the UK can see a possibility that something might change for them if they vote to leave the EU. The women in east London and the men in the mining towns all tell me the worst thing is that things stay the same. The referendum has become a way in which they can have their say, and they are saying collectively that their lives have been better than they are today. And they are right. Shouting “racist” and “ignorant” at them louder and louder will not work – they have stopped listening.

For them, talking about immigration and being afraid of immigration is about the precarity of being working class, when people’s basic needs are no longer secure and they want change. The referendum has opened up a chasm of inequality in the UK and the monsters of a deeply divided and unfair society are crawling out. They will not easily go away no matter what the referendum result.

--oo00oo--

Well, the beauty of a referendum is, unlike a general election where most votes don't count at all, suddenly the middle-class have woken up to the fact that every single bloody vote counts, even those of the 'uneducated', mis-informed or just plain thick working class. Of course the plan was that with the Labour Party officially supporting the Remain camp, this group would loyally follow, but with such an obvious half-hearted campaign the evidence shows that many Labour Party members either don't know what the policy is, or even worse think it's Brexit!   

I think it's much more than this though. The working-class have been royally shafted and ignored for years. Their concerns and interests are completely unkown to the middle class, the metropolitan political class that runs the country, but they're going to get a very rude wake-up call on Thursday because 1) they are fed up 2) they are going to turn out 3) they don't feel bound by any party loyalty and 4) their vote actually counts for once. 

Now this is so very worrying and dangerous for the middle-classes that I already detect the beginnings of an ochestrated campaign, firstly to blame the working-class for being ignorant and secondly ensure we never have a bout of democracy again where every vote counts. Clearly the working-class simply can't be trusted to soak up the reasoned rhetoric, be thoroughy scared of the dire warnings of all the experts and put the bloody cross in the right box! They can't be trusted to know what's best for them. 

Worryingly, here's a guy I really admire, Owen Jones, being patronising in the Guardian:-

Working-class Britons feel Brexity and betrayed – Labour must win them over

Too many working-class northern Labour voters are being seduced by Vote Leave’s disingenuous campaigning. The party has two weeks to reach them

If Britain crashes out of the European Union in two weeks, it will be off the back of votes cast by discontented working-class people. When Andy Burnham warns that the remain campaign has “been far too much Hampstead and not enough Hull”, he has a point. Even Labour MPs who nervously predict remain will scrape it nationally report their own constituencies will vote for exit. Polling consistently illustrates that the lower down the social ladder you are, the more likely you are to opt for leave. Of those voters YouGov deems middle-class, 52% are voting for remain, and just 32% for leave. Among those classified as working-class, the figures are almost the reverse: 36% for remain, 50% for leave. The people Labour were founded to represent are the most likely to want Britain to abandon the European Union.

When presented with a vote on the status quo, it is no surprise that those with the least stake in it vote to abandon it. The same happened in Scotland’s independence referendum. Threats of economic Armageddon resonate little with people living in communities that feel ignored, marginalised and belittled. “Economic insecurity beckons!” people who live in perpetual economic insecurity are told. A Conservative prime minister lines up with pillars of Britain’s establishment with a message of doom – and it makes millions of people even more determined to stick their fingers up at it.

--oo00oo--   

Finally, it's probably worth reflecting on how the 'Beast of Bolsover' and champion of the working-class, Dennis Skinner MP is going to vote - why Brexit of course.      

Napo at Work in the South West 2

As always, thanks go to the reader for sending me the following blog post, circulated to all branch members in the South West. I publish it as an example and illustration of the sort of thing that must be going on behind the scenes at each CRC around the country:-  

Branch report redundancies update 10

Dear Napo Members

1. One of the most important lessons I have learnt over the years and specifically in relation to employment tribunals is this, “if it is not written down it did not happen”. I appreciate this is an arguable statement to make yet the art of inferring a position and formulating an opinion from matters that are not spelled out or recorded becomes almost impossible. Especially in the process of making any serious claims against employer’s conduct and failures to honour employment procedures and contracts or your express terms.

2. With that understood there are the occasional criticisms that Branch reports to members are too long or complicated. The point to remember here is these reports are written to record the activities that we face as your representatives whilst maintaining some line of evidence for your needs as the worst possible scenarios starts to unfold from the way the CRC is acting. This directed by the pressure and direction it receives from the Working Links company way and how all this will impact on, probably you, as one of the 146 members of staff whose job is planned to be dismissed by the 31 March 2017. I hope this thought starts to sharpen your focus and that we all start to galvanise our efforts to do work which is contained in your job description and working hours. Try not to do anything else that assists the destruction of your role.

3. This report 10 follows closely the last branch report whereby I commented on the potential difficulties for DDC if the Joint union meetings were to include a negotiatory aspect or mandate of the meetings. I can report since Friday 10th June latest Joint Union Meeting with the Working Links management and our General Secretary Ian Lawrence, there has been the announcement of the national probation review. Also Ian is negotiating on a national collective bargaining process for the private contract holders. Mr Hindson acknowledged that the JUM was providing what he had wanted anyway and the idea of moving into a formal terms of reference agreement was largely left. It means to me at least we were right not place formal negotiations into such a wider forum on behalf of our branch. No drama there then although what had also became clear to me and others was the awful state of the minutes. Not that they were poorly written but that they are produced as a sanitised version of events. Regular readers of my reports will know that we have been here too often in DDC. The minutes and meetings are critical an accurate recording should now be kept. Similarly and from that the Joint meeting has agreed to move to audio recording for the remainder of the process as we all look to fight off compulsory redundancies through the incredible reorganisation we all face.

4. This is where things start to get ugly. Despite the minutes are currently not agreed and to be fair we are still to prepare our Trade Union sides corrections and put them forward. One thing captured in the draft minute is this “would engage with Unions on ToR and HR Principles to finalise prior to next meeting” Sadly the meetings for short sides to look at these issues were never actually called by management. You can make your own minds up why not?

5. So despite there being no agreed position on the terms of reference which is an aside issue the management announced that they are to start their discussions with all staff in a matching process of transferring staff into new roles and new jobs within the next four weeks and into July. What this means is that individuals will be consulted on by their manager and a job form will be completed as to each staff members position and working situation. Job matching effectively. Now to start any process that has not been agreed locally is no legitimate process. In any case it is matter for serious concern.

6. The Working Links management, Mr Hindson, makes claim that it is a consultation using the lightest reference and interpretation of the word, while trying to claim it is not consultation. That is laughable yet it cannot be anything other than consultation to reorganisation and dismissals by way of compulsory redundancy. Announcing it in the Joint union meeting does not legitimise the process and it fails to actually follow the appropriate and clear process detailed in the current redundancy procedure. Something they choose to ignore. I have made it clear to Ian Lawrence the Napo General Secretary that we ought to be in full disagreement and on the record in dispute over the process so far including a return to complaint through the central arbitration committee. However, Ian is the leader of the Trade Union NAPO and we are in an odd position whereby his view is to see what happens through the job matching exercise. I might well disagree as to where we are but management are likely to continue anyway imposing a new activity. What remains to be seen after they have matched roles and determine who they want to retain (Cherry picking) the remaining staff at least 146 are no longer required and will likely be looking at dismissal.

7. It will then become a simple process for the management to farcically appear to follow the redundancy procedures and in a new charade run through some of the requirements contained within it. Yet we can all see this will be of little value other than lip service as the management then unilaterally move to mass compulsory dismissal. They will no doubt cite the S188 and issue a new one and then try and move quickly to downscale the work force as soon as possible and the 31 3 17 timeline is not a generous period given what they are wanting to do despite their claims.

8. Members, it does not get much worse than this, although Trade Unions are entitled to scrutinise the process and the reasoning for changes in the ways that are being foisted upon our jobs. One of these is to seek to understand the rationale and check the justifications. In the recent JUM we had heard from the so called independence of the Innovation Wessex team. We had not, up until the last one received a Section 188 redundancy notice from the employers indicating financial factor as the reason for mass sackings. Once they indicated this, we in the unions have every right to establish where the funding for your jobs goes.

9. We heard from Innovation Wessex who’s Director attended to try and sell to the Unions their justifications and reasoning behind their planned wholesale change to their new model. It has been a long time coming yet since the imposition of the hub working this review called Proof of Concept POC is nothing more than the Innovation Wessex rubber stamping exercise, be in no doubt. The reviewing body is not what we would expect and indeed what should be a truly independent body to ensure complete impartiality. Yet what knowledge we have of their independence is something of a farcical game. We already know many of the 7 staff employed in Innovation Wessex are either seconded DDC CRC staff from senior management and others funded in post in actual fact through the usual budget lines. Amazingly this group and work activity is exempted from the cuts agenda that could and should be looked at in a way to make savings to save your jobs. Of course you will appreciate this internal clearing house funded by your salaries is for those who are no longer frontline and yet what they endorse is the removal of frontline posts.

10. Our attempts to look more critically at the Wessex activities was met with harsh and incredibly wrong assumptions from management about what they are obliged to tell us and what they avoided in argument. By defending the Innovation Wessex questions with commercial sensitivity gave us a clear and obvious protest too much. We now wonder why and will ask again if anyone else knows of the claim management made that in fact Innovation Wessex are delivering on other commercial contracts? Really? Please let us know in Napo. One thing for certain is they would not say who for. We have no idea if this claim to be delivering on a contract was to suggest they are not wholly funded through Working Links and the same budget that pays you. Somehow I think it is only our members’ salaries that will be sacrificed to keep this activity running and we are not finished with this chapter just yet. We will be writing to the management asking for the details financial of the costs of running Innovation Wessex and to what extent it can truly define its independence? We will look to see their accounts as a bona fide business asking for their Company details activities along the lines of the Law requires company directors to prepare reports, keep adequate accounts of transactions to disclose at any time the company and group financial position, in accordance with Companies Act 2006. Other duties to be exercised under the Act are to promote the success of the company, retain independent judgement, take reasonable care, skill and diligence, and avoid conflicts of interest.

11. In relation to the Working Links activities and what we know of their public records past. Are they the most reputable company to Safeguard the company and group assets, including taking reasonable steps to prevent and detect fraud and other irregularities. After the payments scandal of paying monies back to government for the Department of Work and pensions we in NAPO are sceptical about all that we are told by them.

12. In a different direction and for those that will remain, be in no doubt we now have to wait out the summer attacks and see what further distortions we are to endure in what is becoming a tortuous process of subterfuge and mislead. In these reports I record as things actually are. Any trade unionist will realise it will not be long before they come for us. In the meantime I have responsibility to look carefully into what is happening and work to minimising any losses to our jobs.

13. This is something the management have constantly avoided and we remain on record for telling them so and recording in these reports the ways they have constantly rolled out a process that fails to provide any meaningful exchange whereby we can mitigate job losses. Somehow, as the final pieces of this jigsaw come together unless we get into a full dispute and argue with tactical workplace action, we will sleep walk deeper into the end game. For those staff who survive the planned cull, what they will face is the prospect of lower pay worsening terms. Evidence for this is already on the agenda. It is the new job descriptions and a planned Job evaluation process. This will certainly see Management drive a reduced level of responsibility with a repetitive and flattening job role. Little prospects for enhancement and in a job where autonomy becomes a thing of the past. So winning a post in the new targeting offender model of hubs and interventions might well be the challis no one actually wants. Lowering pay and rewards is not something that will stop, no doubt the future will see further attacks on leave and workers care policies, increased hours and weekend working will be something common place. Already staff are being driven to reduce breach actions as these are cash target linked, this being the imperative now! The future may well see the management regret some of its hurry to make a faster profit but lets us hope in some way the latest probation review might just encourage CRC not to axe any further until all the impacts of the probation structures are better understood since the calamity of TR. 

14. Members it is a time of critical meltdown as the management are determined to dismiss a massive number of staff. People with skills and expertise in a limited field. There is a lack of any insight and knowledge of the nature of the work we were once employed to deliver. Therein lies the point we are not like likely either to return to that work properly. Staff sickness is through the roof and complaints have little prospect of being heard or taken seriously. 

15. Our structure of working terms and conditions of service are all under attack and as the workforce reduces through leavers or dismissals the strength for resistance will diminish. It is not too late, for the time being we can impact on targets and the way we manage our workloads and timings. Do only what is in your contract and resist helping them dismiss you.

16. We look forwards to seeing as many of you as possible at the AGM in Honiton on the 15th of June. Make sure come along ask some questions and take part in the branch while we have the General Secretary and NPS Deputy Director as our guest speakers.

Dino Peros

Napo SSWest Branch Chair JNCC rep.
14 06 16

--oo00oo--

Editor's Note

Please bear in mind that any responses may take time to appear because the blog now operates under a system of comment moderation. I appreciate this is somewhat tedious and stifles lively discussion, but is the only way to prevent malicious and moronic contributions that are being submitted on a regular basis and designed to disrupt and provoke distraction from the intended role the blog has in promoting serious discussion and information sharing. I remain adamant in refusing to allow the blog to be maliciously side-tracked by anyone and request forebearance in this regard.

What Will TR2 Look Like?

Seen on Facebook, including some particularly incisive thoughts regarding a possible future scenario for probation:-

The danger of course in probation is losing sight of our traditional approach and values that are being swamped by political ideology and machinations and having more confidence in what we know through experience and the findings from recent research that support the way we used to do things (until recently) and finding ways to communicate this to the accountants now calling the shots.

Here in the APs the new structure has been wheeled out and we are all going to lose financially, yet are expected to work at the same capacity with HRO. I will lose roughly £500 a month as I work permanent nights, I suspect this is the beginning towards full privatisation in the coming years. Still trying to be positive though which is a challenge:-S

*******
Yes it is hard to foresee how APs might continue in the public sector when it is believed to be OK to privatise prisons and over 70% of probation. Apparently the idea of doing away with the NPS (again) is gathering momentum in MoJ/NOMS and has been mentioned to certain CRC owners as a possibility although the official line is that this is not the case and the NPS will continue as an ideological anomaly (or beacon of hope and defiance) whilst all around it is privatised and allowed to become de-standardised. 

The recent announcements to give prison governors more autonomy should also be seen as a step towards further privatisation of prisons including higher security and more specialised prisons. My guess is that the intention was for the AP contract to be put out to tender once CRCs had settled down as part of TR phase 2 or TR2. As you are aware the CRCs have been negotiating and in some cases it looks likely that at least one owner is looking to withdraw upon the realisation that there is too little money to be made without the risk of reputational damage. TR2 sees NPS prison staff absorbed into prisons, NPS court staff into courts and NPS community staff into CRCs. The question for APs will no doubt be whether to look at them as a national or local contract. The name of this game is to reduce costs whilst appearing publicly not to reduce service effectiveness.

*******
Grayling put handcuffs on the government meaning they cannot take back the CRCs. Therefore the only thing to do given the enormous clusterfuck that is the NPS/CRC split is to fold the NPS into the private sector. The only positives I can see from that is we can get rid of the massively bureaucratic Case Allocation System and drop the pointless RSR down a big hole.

*******
I have heard on the grapevine that that is the thinking of a growing number of people in the MoJ and NOMS although rumours and speculation abound in these politically precarious times. It is sometimes forgotten though that Gove's neoliberal instincts would logically tend towards him favouring further privatisation (NSS) and to want to unfetter the CRCs from the current bureaucratic quagmire (who he must curse Grayling for creating and that amounts as we all agree to the exact opposite of smart thinking) so he will look to do this intelligently and hopefully with the benefit of advice from those who are at least knowledgeable. The continued existence of the NPS in its present form will make no sense to him but some form of regulatory framework and standardisation across the risk management organisations (as probation as we understand it will probably be referred to in future) does. 

Every time I write a comment like this I am aware it might be re-posted elsewhere without the caveat that I am only trying to think through and make sense of possible policy direction through somewhat hypothetical type discussions with third parties - who may of course have their own ideas and agenda. From what I gather from those-in-the-know there are political machinations, plots, power plays, and worse within the MoJ and NOMS that would put Game of Thrones to shame. It is a wonder that they ever produce anything approaching a coherent policy given the energies that are apparently wasted in internal wrangling petty interdepartmental squabbles.

--oo00oo--

In 20 years I've never experienced such low staff morale or sickness levels. My team has been at 50% staffing levels since December 2015. It will be under that level from next week. I remember a song that went 'How low can you go!'

This appears to be a familiar story and because of the nature of our work people need to be seen, deadlines need to be met and this situation translates to a substantial increase in workload. Inspections will be taking place soon and no doubt organisations will attempt to present a positive impression whilst the reality is very different. It makes sense to let inspectors know the truth and how TR is not working and the impact of the various proprietary operating systems (CRC or NPS) are having at the frontline on staff and service delivery.

*******

What Operating Systems? Are you referring to gloried calculator shadowing as a full blown computer system? The whole thing is making me lose my mind.

*******
No I was deliberately using a computing analogy to refer to the operating models that NPS and the CRCs are using Wunmi and we know just how compatible interoperable and reliable different computer operating systems are. No sane person/ethical organisation would design the current organisational systems the way they are if their aim was to deliver rehabilitation rather than merely make matters confusing enough to cream off surplus from government contracts whilst appearing to be innovative and do more for less.

******

And on top of staff shortages we find that IT is down on a daily basis and I often experience that I can't have deilus and Eoasys open at the same time! Now that's agile working in action: my laptop flying out of the window!

--oo00oo--

Are CRC's compensated if delius is down for the day nationally! This seems to be happening on a weekly basis and yet the MOJ expect us to hit targets! My office is paperless so I couldn't even compile an Eoasys ISP as I need to access delius. I'll continue to shout that computer systems are 'not fit for purpose' as I have done so for well over a decade.

*******
It's so frustrating!! A whole day! I've worked all evening as a result. It's still down.....

*******
I can understand why but I will only work my hours, no more! None of this is my fault and in this job you need to have some 'me' or 'family' time. I refuse to do any work inside my front door, I say this from experience from the last century (you'll not be thanked for it!) Don't let this Invade your home as it's not your fault.

*******
Totally agree..... keep to work times. I do work from home as I can get more done than in the office but rarely evenings.... just work hours.... it's a job... family time and chill time are more important....

*******
I have left work at 4pm. Not taking work home with me due to a service issue if an ISP is missed so be it. It's not my or your problem it's a service issue. Don't put yourself under that kind of pressure. Miss the target that's the only way the service learns. You are not culpable the service is in this respect :)

*******
I only managed to do anything because I have 500+ emails still unread from a month off sick.. Next week will be my 3rd week back and only got them down by 100 during those two weeks! I go to the loo and come back to another 50!

*******
Don't forget to keep recording in your diaries when the systems go down.

The Problem with PbR

As ideas continue to be sketched on the backs of envelopes as to the future of probation and how the MoJ extricates itself from the omnishambles created by Grayling, here's an interesting blog post about the failings of PbR on the NCVO website:-

PAYING FOR DATA PRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM WITH PAYMENT BY RESULTS

It is important that questions are raised about the effectiveness of payment by results (PbR), as this policy has avoided scrutiny for much of its lifetime.

Unfortunately, the recent treatment of the issue in the Economist only scraped the surface of the damage that PbR has done to the delivery of effective services in the UK. While it cast PbR as an innovative funding mechanism between the state and private outsourcing companies, the voluntary sector has been extensively drawn into the tangled web of PbR experiments at local and national level.

In particular, the article fails to engage with the core problem of PbR – that it inevitably creates perverse incentives. The perverse incentives are not an unfortunate by-product of PbR programmes, nor are they a technical problem that can be fixed with better metrics or measurement regimes.

Misguided incentives

PbR inevitably creates perverse incentives for two reasons. Firstly, the necessarily simple payment metrics upon which all PbR programmes depend (3rd Commandment of PbR – ‘thy metrics shall be simple’) are simplified, top-down targets which force providers to ignore the complex and messy lives of the real people with whom they work. They force providers to pursue goals that have been decided in advance, with no ability to respond to changing circumstances or people’s individual needs.

What happens when getting a job with unsocial hours or arduous travel interferes with family routines and the caring responsibilities of a Work Programme client? It doesn’t matter, because that’s the target that must be pursued. It doesn’t matter that being forced to adapt to the employment goal will end up costing the state more in terms of social care, that’s not the target.

Secondly, the article fails to address the most significant problem of PbR – that real life outcomes are produced by a huge range of factors and interventions working together (in technical terms – outcomes are emergent properties of complex systems).

To hold one organisation or programme accountable for producing a result distorts the complex systems by which outcomes are created. Making organisations accountable for results which are beyond their control means that organisations learn instead to manage what they can control – the production of data.

This is exactly what the evidence says happens in PbR programmes, and why PbR programmes often produce good-looking data. It’s because the organisations are concentrating on data production at the expense of actually doing the complex reality of the job that clients need.

What the evidence tells us

All this is made abundantly clear in the conclusion of the National Audit Office report from 2015. Whilst this report is mentioned in the Economist piece, inexplicably, the article does not refer to the report’s conclusion: that PbR should only be used where outcomes can directly be attributed to interventions.

In other words, PbR cannot be used in any complex, real-life situations, where outcomes are the product of complex, inter-related factors most of which are beyond the control or influence of the programmes at hand.

Organisations funded through PbR don’t necessarily produce bad results. Some professionals and some organisations, driven to do a good job by their values, manage to push back against the distorting drivers that PbR imposes on them. However, these people and organisations manage to do the right thing in spite of PbR, not because of it. Again, this is clearly seen in the evidence.

The real motivations

We already have strong evidence from behavioural and occupational psychology about what motivates people to improve, innovate and achieve in their day-to-day work. The findings are consistent across all sectors and types of activity.

Pay matters, in the sense of assuring everyone a decent reliable income to live on, but additional ‘performance-related’ financial rewards don’t incentivise heightened performance – not even in the finance sector!

It’s having a sense of purpose, autonomy and increasing mastery of their skills that makes people perform to their very best. Instead of offering autonomy and flexibility for the creativity of their skills, PbR renders the service practitioner a mere cog in a pre-programmed finance-driven machine by expecting them to repeat a set model of intervention over and over again, as reliably and consistently as possible, to produce the best ‘measured’ result for a maximum turnover of clients.

This industrial model of social support is in fact a recipe for creating even worse performance than the same service might achieve without PbR funding drivers – and the disempowerment of practitioners may be one possible explanation of the significantly worse practice performance in Rikers Island SIB in New York, and in the initial findings from PbR pilots in drug treatment here.

PbR is a destructive, costly farce. It pays organisations to produce data, rather than focussing on the real job in hand. And in so doing, it undermines good practice in social interventions and wastes huge amounts of taxpayer resources.

Dr Toby Lowe is senior research associate at Newcastle University Business School.
Kathy Evans is chief executive at Children England.

Pick of the Week 7

Adjustments? How can something fundamentally broken and corrupted be "adjusted"? Halt this chaotic farce and re-unite the services. The cost of not doing so is immeasurable.

*******
I can save them shitloads of time & money. Here's the Review:

"TR was an ideological hors d'oerve for the wholesale privatisation of public services. The timing wasn't ideal, it had to be rushed through pre-election; but it was aided & abetted through the fortunate combination of the vainglorious Grayling's pomposity & Labour's careless wording the 2007 Act.

The TR project was financially underwritten by the Treasury to expedite the process with a limited number of cautious bidders who we knew were waiting to cash-in. The financial losses have been suitably disguised & the unions involved are too timid & small to be of any concern, but we have to be mindful of keeping the CRCs afloat.

In rushing TR through the statute books we had to make empty promises to NOMS to keep them on message. Consequently we miscalculated the likely impact on the retained NPS so are now trying plug all the holes with E3 and agency staff.

All in all it has been okay; no major PR gaffes, no major law suits, Grayling's been shuffled out of the way and we thought Gove would be our man."

But it seems that when Dave publicly humiliated Gove by sacking him from Education, Gove wouldn't let it lie. So now they are worried what's next from the rogue minister post-EU Referendum. Will he explode the TR myth & expose the suspected corruption, nepotism & possible outright profiteering at the public's expense? The constructive dismissal of hundreds of staff, opening the door to a massive class action?

*******
Today could be life-changing for me. After contemplating leaving on several occasions since June 2014 and sift into CRC, I have recently started applying for jobs outside Probation. Have reached a point where I'm at the end of my tether and due to the nature of my role (not operational) am feeling increasingly isolated and confused about job role. Actively seeking other employment now and who knows, may be able resign after today!

*******
I agree. I want to know why I am working in a crap organisation, feeling like a second class citizen and new PSOs are able to hold higher risk cases than I can? No doubt I will soon have an unqualified PSO rejecting my breach reports. Does this sound bitter? I am.

********
There is a major problem with the whole breach process. I am no longer a Napo member as I burnt my papers post split when I had a nervous breakdown and PTSD from 20 years working with lifers and sex offenders. However I am now back with a new attitude called DGAF in terms of useless directives. Just get on with it and if they don't like it I am ready to be sacked and have all my evidence to take legal action. 

In the mean time I will tell you that the CRC breach process is a farce! We are told to try and avoid at all costs and if we do, ask for order to continue to avoid failing targets. Then NPS who have entirely different targets say, no you have to ask for revoke resentence! Breaches and applications to amend constantly rejected. CRC asking for orders to be extended because CRC have failed to get people through BBR in time before order expires and in goes an app. Approved by CRC SPO only for NPS PSO to say you can't do that and it has to be revoked and re sentenced. So we are damned if we do and dammed if we don't and CRC/NPS are at each others throats. Certainly not working together as they should be but constant friction. Pass this to Napo. They didn't support me then but maybe they will support someone now.

*******
In my office the NPS works. In most offices which had public protection teams the work and service is the same. It's E3 that's set to make things worse and NOMS wants to portray the NPS as failing so it can hand it to Police and Crime Commissioners who will then sell it off to private companies.

*******
And they need to stop lumping NPS and CRC in the same sentence. We are now very different organisations. NPS does probation work. CRC pretends to do probation work.

*******
Hey, we don't even pretend anymore. Contracts are signed and guaranteed for 8 years. After that they will be handed back, profit taken out and the public purse used to patch things back up. If ANYONE thinks the CRC's are in it for anything other than profit then they are deluded! NAPO might be better served by asking to see how much money the likes of Sodexo have made so far and their estimated income over the next five years! THAT will paint a much better picture of TR than people moaning about breaches and TTG!

*******
Bit harsh. As former colleagues you should know we are doing our best with hand we have been dealt which admittedly is not great. Don't be so sure that your hand cannot be trumped. We need to all focus on pursuing a unified Probation Service again, sum of our parts greater that way.

*******
That wasn't directed at the probation staff. It's the CRC managers and owners that are pretending. Some that have no idea about probation work and others that do, all working together to fudge the figures and maximise the profits. The NPS will go the same way if the Tory civil servants continue to have free reign over justice.

*******
It was pretty poorly phrased, and insulting to CRC staff, even if that wasn't your intention. And I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the NPS aren't already fudging the figures.

*******
I also felt insulted by your remarks. As stated in my previous post, I already feel like a second class citizen. Former colleagues who I previously worked with also look down on the CR without a thought about how we have been treated. To all those people looking down on us, you will probably be joining us soon. Still bitter.

*******
Sad to hear you feel this way, it certainly isn't how it is in SY. We are all still united in our disgust at what's been done to us and doing the best we can. I haven't heard any comments which suggest one side is better than the other except that the CRC is much worse for colleagues at the moment, but E3 is about to change all that and we in NPS are braced for the next big shafting! I understand we are to have meetings to see how far we can be shafted!!

*******
I'm a Probation Officer who wants to be "excellent" in all my interactions with clients and partners in the CJS but unfortunately that's not what my masters want They want me to be excellent at filling in forms and meeting meaningless targets They don't want quality reports anymore just tick box templates and minimum time spent with clients I am finding the conflict too difficult to manage anymore.

*******
I know exactly how you feel. Yet when I raised this with manager was told, no, we do want you to do good quality one to one work! Meaning this is what Working Links expect. They want it all despite stretching us to breaking point. Moving office in two weeks from a suitable building with private interview rooms to one where we will be interviewing in public area! How can I do my job in this completely crap situation!

********
The think tank is basically a government way of floating an idea and sounding out reaction whilst allowing them to remain detached from it. Didn't they suggest to scrap Noms, have prison manage cases until 6 months before release and to scrap NPS with CRCs having all cases in the community? I think the E3 review allows report writing to be a separate team which will be merged into HMCS - and staff in court team losing money after a job re-evaluation. Of course this leaves all cases in the failing CRCs. Rumours in Working Links that they are looking to bid for other contract areas. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

*******
The answer is simple. The NPS should absorb each CRC upon their pending breaches of contract and run as agency in its own right under a separate department of the MoJ, similar to Court services. Forget PCC control, forget local authority control as these will not work.

*******
"Reform of the offender management system over the last decade and more has sought to deal in one way or another with three inextricably linked issues:

• reoffending rates which have remained stubbornly high; 
• a prison population which has consistently pushed against the available capacity in the prison estate; and
• an increasingly pressing need to improve the value for money of the system, by improving performance and driving down cost"

The OM model was created to legitimise the implementation of OASys. It was a flawed model from the outset but hurriedly imposed by NOMS to bring probation under their control. Any reform over the last decade or so has been about increasing facility for NOMS's command & control remit, NOT addressing the three "issues" as follows:

• Reoffending rates have remained stable for a long time, perhaps more of a reflection of how some people either choose or feel compelled to live their lives in modern Britain, as opposed to any particular failure of probation intervention? Fine default, substance use, education, mental health, child protection - the lack of any forethought by successive governments contributes much here.
• The prison population is informed by sentencing & political will, not specifically by any failure of intervention. Prisons are heavily populated with people who don't really need to be there.
• Probation was a gold standard public sector service; only the interference of political ambition imbued the service with any "need" to improve performance & drive down cost. That is not to be complacent about how things were, but merely to illustrate the futility of the Reform assertion & recognise that TR has both destroyed an established service & increased the costs many-fold.

*******
You missed out the major issue which is the people hired by MoJ and NOMS to sort the mess out. These people were spectacularly unsuited to do so as they had zero conception of what it is actually like to be in prison or under probation and what would actually be needed to do things like cut reoffending because they consistently failed to consult the users of the service i.e. the prisoners. It wouldn't be hard to design and implement a system that would actually work but you'd have to include prisoners and ex prisoners in every aspect of the process which no civil servant would want to do.

********
The fundamental problem with the whole strategy is that the people responsible for managing it failed to engage in any meaningful way with those professionals who had the expertise and experience relating to the management of offenders in the community. There appears to have been a NOMS corporate view that the Prison Service pseudo-military model of employee management was an attractive proposition when measured against the maverick creativity and flexibility displayed by the Probation Service as was. 

By failing to recognise that this knowledge and expertise had evolved over 100 years of management of offenders in the community, those responsible for TR shot themselves in the foot before they got off the starting line. Most of the troubles facing TR were highlighted by Probation staff, both management and frontline staff, long before the process was begun never mind completed but the arrogance of the ministry did not allow them to recognise the value in what they had and the need to engage those in the know in the developing picture. 'Lions led by donkeys', I believe is the expression. 

They can have all of the reviews they like but, until they recognise that a Prison Governor is not and never was the best person to manage a community resource, with all of the flexibility that is required in the 'real' world, where offenders don't behave in two-dimensionally predictable ways, then they will fail to recognise their folly and keep repeating the same mistakes.

I left a whilst ago now and won't be going back (as a former SPO at the top of the scale, I would have to start again at the bottom - in short, the NPS cannot afford me) but, as an interested bystander, I am saddened to see this once great organisation reduced to a farce (I feel the same way about many privatised public services). The problem is clear. the solution is clear. Whilst the drivers are wrong, the business model will be wrong. Keep the wrong drivers and you will always have the wrong business practices.

*******

Report has the hand of ex prison governor Richard Lockyer all over it. Keep prisons as public sector fiefdoms but hand probation over wholesale to the private sector. Why not privatise all the prisons as well, if it's such a great idea? And why were Probation Trusts never allowed to bid to run prisons?

Report confirms that 'NOMS' is just another name for the Prison Service - controlled by former prison governors with Probation influence now completely eradicated. Even the head of NPS is a former prison governor.

*******
The biggest problem was that NOMS was created with prison and civil service personnel at the helm. As David Ramsbotham said "the problem with ridiculous NOMS is that it has no probation officers making senior decisions". If it had it would have been a very different story; increased community sentences, decreased prison population, rehabilitation over punishment, etc, etc.

********
I am still making my mind up about re-joining Napo after a break in service. The problem you mention above regarding Sodexo is also happening in other CRCs. I don't want to be identified by saying too much, but other CRCs are asking staff to interview at open public areas, not even a booth because they have been moved out of suitable offices to save money. 

Given what has happened in the news recently it does concern me that our personal safety is being taken for granted as is our client's safety. Recently one of my clients who has mental health problems made a comment about a member of the public as we sat at an open table in public area. It made me realise what could happen! Please can Napo do an audit of the situation in all CRC offices? If I felt like Napo were looking out for us I would consider re-joining but I feel they need to be more pro active in reaching people!

*******
I don't feel they can do Napo at all, let alone Napo Extra. The Sodexo statement is not a disclaimer but very firmly passes the buck to frontline staff viz- "I would like to reassure you that providing employees act appropriately and responsibly, within the remit of their role... then (name of) CRC as the employer will not take formal action against individuals for inadvertent breaches." That's no lack of action, that's a very positive move from Sodexo's perspective; but surely something the NOMS floorwalkers ought to be addressing as part of their remit to keep CRC owners on track & within MoJ guidelines.

But who in NOMS wants to upset the French caterers? Who knows, maybe there's a fast-food franchise lined up for every Sodexo CRC diner to serve coffee, burgers & fries to their new customer stream? MoJ sponsored premises (Modernisation Fund), guaranteed footfall...

*******
An active union would advise ALL STAFF IN SODEXO AREAS to inform offenders of their right to refuse to attend appointments at Sodexo offices, which would be non-enforceable. This would decimate the targets and put the newspapers into overdrive.

"Data protection principle 6 (Data Protection Act Schedule 1) states that an individual has: ‘A right to object to processing that is likely to cause or is causing damage and distress.’ Both Napo and UNISON interpret this as meaning that a service user could reasonably object to being interviewed in one of the Sodexo booths for the reasons set out above."

*******
Sodexo's invention of the behavioural act of an 'inadvertent breach' merely underlines their arrogance. A breach of sensitive information is a breach however it comes about and there is a legal responsibility on Sodexo to ensure that the systems it has in place can be trusted to process information safely. The fact that they issued such advice suggests they know their systems (the booths) are unsafe.

It follows that staff are at risk of committing breaches because they are working in an unsafe workplace. Why can't Napo therefore ballot its members on this issue with a view to issuing formal advice to members that could include a refusal to use the booths because they put individual members at risk of breaking the law.

*******
It doesn't make any difference what Sodexo say. I am moving to open plan interviewing. If I mention something in an interview and someone gets beaten up as a result on the way home, then I could be prosecuted and end up with a criminal conviction. Don"t think it can't happen because it already has to NHS staff overheard at a bus stop. Sodexo etc. Will not back you up they will simply cover there arses by landing CRC staff well and truly in their own shit.

*******
Until a mass fight occurs in an office and people are hurt, nothing will sufficiently change. We've had flare ups already but the professionalism of the staff have managed the situation, but the environment is open to pub style brawls, and they will happen, just a matter of time.

*******
Using public spaces to interview offenders in CRC is dangerous to public and goes against our duty to protect the public! How would you feel if you were sat in a library knowing that there was someone coming in possibly carrying a knife? Ok, anyone could do that but the fact is we are playing Russian roulette as at some point member of the public could have bag nicked or worse, be assaulted and then where will we stand?

*******
There is a game being played out here, a face saving game. Government, NOMS, Sodexo et al, Contracts, Audit, Profit, reputations and regrettably at all our expense. Sodexo not necessarily the issue, they are what they are, just as am I and you. Shambolic, truly shambolic.

********
Agreed that the contractors are using this as a springboard. What many want is secure accommodation. Again you don:t give the keys back as a provider. You sell the contract on to another provider. When it's sold on the terms and conditions are then renegotiated. So instead of a pay mechanism you may choose to use what is known as a fee for service with a management fee. This then guarantee's a profit and the other saves face.

********
We were told by a MP that none of the CRC have been paid yet as they haven't hit their targets. Also five out of six Sodexo areas failing! Didn't take long. Wonder what the MOJ will do?

*******
What everyone appears to be ignoring is that the powers that be cannot afford to put it back together. There is a clause in the contracts that states that the CRCs will be paid the full contract amount even if it is taken back. So essentially it's cheaper for them to carry on running things. The cost of amalgamation would far exceed any savings and the bill would still have to be paid.

*******
The contracts definitely have break clauses for poor performance. It would also not be surprising if one or more contracts failed to run the distance because of a poor rate of return for the owners, although I expect some (especially Sodexo) see it as a loss leader for more lucrative prison contracts. But both situations could arise at the same time, with a contract taken back in one area, whilst another is handed back elsewhere.

*******
I have a feeling that the contracts will end when one of the CPA's hand back the contract, having milked the very life out of it. Make no mistake, these companies will not hold on to anything which impact on profits or indeed fails to make them. These companies will then be offered further contracts for running (down) other services. It's happened too many times now, and we all know the best predictor of future behaviour.

I give it three years, once the Fee for Service drops down and the Payment by Results for the basis for profit. Not enough has been done, profits have been stripped, staff laid off and a general sense of ennui prevails. Not one of these is conducive to effecting rehabilitation. I've had people on Orders for lesser crimes than our overlords have committed!

*******
Programmes is where the money is. Why else would they be making sure that all licences have a programme as a licence condition. Even if they don't actually manage to do the programme.

*******
The contracts wont end or be handed back. Falling wavs are most likely to be remedied by giving CRCs a larger proportion of the client group by pushing up the RSR threshold or giving them Mappa.

*******
I can confirm there will be no handing of keys. The privateers simply used TR as a springboard to bigger and better contracts. YOU ALL need to get over that our profession is just a means to an end of privateers lining their pockets.

*******
The new CRC managers have no Probation practice experience so can't understand the impact of reforms on working practices. They draw up lovely flowcharts and speak authoritatively about their planned changes, but when questioned in detail about everyday practice issues that conflict with their ideal plans, they quickly show their naivety. These are risky people, who are inadvertently putting staff and members of the public at risk. They think they know better than experienced practitioners and are too arrogant to actively listen to concerns raised.