I'm extremely grateful to Russell Webster for his sharing thoughts gleaned from the recent CBI conference on Payment by Results. It should come as no great surprise that the star turn was Justice Minister Chris Grayling, a proselytising advocate of PbR in his privatisation plans for the probation service. Mr Webster picked up on one particular theme from the Minister's speech:-
"Mr Grayling spent a surprising amount of his speech talking about reputation management.
Specifically, he felt that the Work Programme providers (Mr Grayling was the architect of the Work Programme before moving to the MoJ) had managed both their own reputations and those of the Programme itself poorly in the face of media criticism.
He stated that he would expect those bidding for MoJ contracts to demonstrate good reputation management skills."
I have to say that it comes as no great surprise that Grayling is so concerned about potential reputational damage, especially given the dodgy goings on with the likes of A4E and the dogs breakfast G4S made of the recent Olympic security contract and inevitable public outcry.
You will recall the supreme irony of the whole sorry Olympic saga - G4S had to admit that one of their key motives in tendering for the job in the first place was in order to improve their public image - enhance their reputation. I suspect no one was more dismayed at what transpired than Chris Grayling because G4S is clearly regarded as an absolutely key player in his plans for privatising the probation service.
Grayling is a politician, wants to climb the greasy pole and ultimately get elected again, so 'reputation' is very important, more so than deeds I suspect. It's interesting that Mr Webster came away from the conference noting that:-
"Reputation management ability will be a selection criterion for Justice PbR contracts"
What an astonishing admission! So, as the Minister's department turns it's skills towards designing a cunning contractual framework for carving the probation service up, it's not just about who does what and how they get paid, it's actually more about who can be trusted to come up with a good story when it all goes pear-shaped. To look after the reputation of the department you understand, not to cover the Minister's arse.
Friday, 18 January 2013
Thursday, 17 January 2013
Vote Early - Vote Often!
There are unmistakable signs that people who feel strongly about what Chris Grayling and this government are proposing for the Probation Service are beginning to make their views known. One way is the Downing Street e-petition and I notice a fresh one has been started here and has already attracted 5262 signatures.
What's interesting is that the previous attempt only attracted 325 signatures last August. I detect a serious change in attitude by a normally fairly mild and compliant sector of the population. Even NAPO is showing signs of seriously gearing up for a fight - it's membership of late have been notably unwilling to display much sign of unity, let alone militancy.
Now really is the time for probation to call in all our favours in the widest sense and garner as much support as possible for keeping probation as a public service. I notice that Professor of Criminology Carol Hedderman at Leicester University had an abridged letter published in the Independent on 15th January. The full version can be found here on the Probation Chief's Association website.
It would seem that Sarah Billiald the Chief Executive of Kent Probation Trust holds lead communication responsibility for the PCA and therefore speaks on behalf of probation. I saw her briefly on Channel 4 News and wondered who she was. She has had a letter published in the Guardian, but I have to say I think it's a mistake not to put up a probation officer to defend probation. By profession she is an accountant who rose to become a senior Civil Servant before taking over at Kent in 2008. When interviewed in the Guardian last July she said:-
For leaders without frontline experience, getting the right team in place is important. Sarah Billiald, chief executive of Kent Probation, quickly appointed a probation officer as her PA, who was able to give her insider tips when she first took on her role.
Billiald, who previously worked for the National Audit Office and the prime minister's delivery unit, has also made one of her senior operational team a "head of profession", with a direct line into the board's chair.
"You need to find a way of understanding and valuing frontline experience. Some have it by having done it themselves; others by having people close to them who have done it," she says.
A PO as PA 'who gave a few insider tips' OMG!
We now know that Sarah is a keen 'tweeter' and whatever some of us may feel about the usefulness of this particular means of communication, without doubt the development of social media and the internet generally is beginning to have an effect on how decision-making is conducted in a mature democracy like ours.
Organisations like 38 Degrees have been able to exert considerable influence over government policy decisions simply by using the internet to inform and mobilise public opinion. We've got to do the same and I see there are already some tentative signs of the word spreading on Facebook.
PS For those readers interested, a lot of tweeting probation action seems to be happening here.
What's interesting is that the previous attempt only attracted 325 signatures last August. I detect a serious change in attitude by a normally fairly mild and compliant sector of the population. Even NAPO is showing signs of seriously gearing up for a fight - it's membership of late have been notably unwilling to display much sign of unity, let alone militancy.
Now really is the time for probation to call in all our favours in the widest sense and garner as much support as possible for keeping probation as a public service. I notice that Professor of Criminology Carol Hedderman at Leicester University had an abridged letter published in the Independent on 15th January. The full version can be found here on the Probation Chief's Association website.
It would seem that Sarah Billiald the Chief Executive of Kent Probation Trust holds lead communication responsibility for the PCA and therefore speaks on behalf of probation. I saw her briefly on Channel 4 News and wondered who she was. She has had a letter published in the Guardian, but I have to say I think it's a mistake not to put up a probation officer to defend probation. By profession she is an accountant who rose to become a senior Civil Servant before taking over at Kent in 2008. When interviewed in the Guardian last July she said:-
For leaders without frontline experience, getting the right team in place is important. Sarah Billiald, chief executive of Kent Probation, quickly appointed a probation officer as her PA, who was able to give her insider tips when she first took on her role.
Billiald, who previously worked for the National Audit Office and the prime minister's delivery unit, has also made one of her senior operational team a "head of profession", with a direct line into the board's chair.
"You need to find a way of understanding and valuing frontline experience. Some have it by having done it themselves; others by having people close to them who have done it," she says.
A PO as PA 'who gave a few insider tips' OMG!
We now know that Sarah is a keen 'tweeter' and whatever some of us may feel about the usefulness of this particular means of communication, without doubt the development of social media and the internet generally is beginning to have an effect on how decision-making is conducted in a mature democracy like ours.
Organisations like 38 Degrees have been able to exert considerable influence over government policy decisions simply by using the internet to inform and mobilise public opinion. We've got to do the same and I see there are already some tentative signs of the word spreading on Facebook.
PS For those readers interested, a lot of tweeting probation action seems to be happening here.
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
Grooming the Nation
With publication of the joint report by ACPO and NSPCC into allegations of sex offending by Jimmy Savile, we are now in possession of damning evidence that confirms he was without doubt this country's most prolific sex offender. In total 214 criminal offences are recorded in 28 police areas, committed over 50 years.
Death may have robbed us of ever getting justice, however the joint report 'Giving Victims a Voice' is already proving cathartic for many and with some saying it's a relief to be believed at long last. The discussion as to exactly how Savile was able to get away with so much offending, effectively 'hiding in full sight' as the authors termed it, will go on for some time and the reverberations for our institutions and beliefs will continue to be felt for years.
Amongst other things, it forces us to look again at the 60's and 70's and our perceptions of what exactly was going on during this period of 'liberation'. According to this extremely thoughtful blog post by a fellow DJ, we even have to look carefully at Savile's version of DJ history that puts himself as being the first to use twin record decks. It seems he really did hoodwink us all, including Alison Bellamy the author of last years biography, as he went about 'grooming the nation' - another memorable phrase coined by the report authors.
By one of those very strange accidents of timing, publication of the Savile report pretty well coincided with a whole raft of official figures on sex offending being released in a joint report by the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Office of National Statistics. I note that Inspector Gadget was quick off the mark in highlighting the somewhat astonishing anomaly that whilst some 400,000 sex offences apparently go unreported each year, crime is officially said to be 'falling'.
So here we have official confirmation of what many of us suspected, namely that sex offending of all types is much more prevalent than generally thought to be the case. For a whole raft of reasons and graphically illustrated by the Saville case, victims are extremely loathe to report incidents to the police. Even if they do and the police take the matter seriously, the Crown Prosecution Service have to be convinced that a case is worth prosecuting. If the case gets to court and the victim feels up to the strain of giving evidence, the Jury has to be convinced and the conviction rate for rape in particular is extremely low.
But as if this scenario wasn't bad enough, probation officers also know from experience that as a type of convicted offender, the degree of denial and minimisation amongst sex offenders is considerable. I discussed the issue here following a report on HMP Wakefield by Nick Hardwick HM Chief Inspector of Prisons last year. He noted 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.’
Now Wakefield is a maximum security prison holding 750 inmates, most of whom are serving life sentences and many have convictions relating to the most serious sex offences imaginable. So that's at least 300 men saying they are innocent in just one jail. This point was picked up by Paul Sullivan writing in the prisoners newspaper 'Inside Time' last November in questioning if it was right for the HMI to concern himself with in effect making a judgement on issues of denial by prisoners. He went on to set the scene as he sees it:-
'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.'
So, having negotiated all the hurdles that lie in the way of obtaining a conviction, here we have in one paragraph what I feel is a pretty distorted view of the process and an alarmingly naive belief in the veracity of significant levels of denial amongst sex offenders. I have to say that it's a view that is widely held however, but one I hope the Savile case might help in dispelling. The truth is that of course some wrongful convictions do occur in our adversarial justice system and some false allegations are made, especially in relation to rape, but it's a question of degree isn't it, and clearly the figures just don't add up do they?
Death may have robbed us of ever getting justice, however the joint report 'Giving Victims a Voice' is already proving cathartic for many and with some saying it's a relief to be believed at long last. The discussion as to exactly how Savile was able to get away with so much offending, effectively 'hiding in full sight' as the authors termed it, will go on for some time and the reverberations for our institutions and beliefs will continue to be felt for years.
Amongst other things, it forces us to look again at the 60's and 70's and our perceptions of what exactly was going on during this period of 'liberation'. According to this extremely thoughtful blog post by a fellow DJ, we even have to look carefully at Savile's version of DJ history that puts himself as being the first to use twin record decks. It seems he really did hoodwink us all, including Alison Bellamy the author of last years biography, as he went about 'grooming the nation' - another memorable phrase coined by the report authors.
By one of those very strange accidents of timing, publication of the Savile report pretty well coincided with a whole raft of official figures on sex offending being released in a joint report by the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Office of National Statistics. I note that Inspector Gadget was quick off the mark in highlighting the somewhat astonishing anomaly that whilst some 400,000 sex offences apparently go unreported each year, crime is officially said to be 'falling'.
So here we have official confirmation of what many of us suspected, namely that sex offending of all types is much more prevalent than generally thought to be the case. For a whole raft of reasons and graphically illustrated by the Saville case, victims are extremely loathe to report incidents to the police. Even if they do and the police take the matter seriously, the Crown Prosecution Service have to be convinced that a case is worth prosecuting. If the case gets to court and the victim feels up to the strain of giving evidence, the Jury has to be convinced and the conviction rate for rape in particular is extremely low.
But as if this scenario wasn't bad enough, probation officers also know from experience that as a type of convicted offender, the degree of denial and minimisation amongst sex offenders is considerable. I discussed the issue here following a report on HMP Wakefield by Nick Hardwick HM Chief Inspector of Prisons last year. He noted 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.’
Now Wakefield is a maximum security prison holding 750 inmates, most of whom are serving life sentences and many have convictions relating to the most serious sex offences imaginable. So that's at least 300 men saying they are innocent in just one jail. This point was picked up by Paul Sullivan writing in the prisoners newspaper 'Inside Time' last November in questioning if it was right for the HMI to concern himself with in effect making a judgement on issues of denial by prisoners. He went on to set the scene as he sees it:-
'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.'
So, having negotiated all the hurdles that lie in the way of obtaining a conviction, here we have in one paragraph what I feel is a pretty distorted view of the process and an alarmingly naive belief in the veracity of significant levels of denial amongst sex offenders. I have to say that it's a view that is widely held however, but one I hope the Savile case might help in dispelling. The truth is that of course some wrongful convictions do occur in our adversarial justice system and some false allegations are made, especially in relation to rape, but it's a question of degree isn't it, and clearly the figures just don't add up do they?
Monday, 14 January 2013
Vote For G4S!
I've just noticed that G4S have been nominated for a major award and we all have a chance to enter a vote. They have been put forward for the Public Eye award, an initiative by the Berne Declaration and GreenPeace by the charity War on Want as the company most deserving for 'naming and shaming' in 2013.
G4S is said to be the world's largest private military and security company with operations in 125 countries employing 657,000 people. Seeing as they are destined to become one of the key players in privatising the Probation Service here in England and Wales, I feel it would be good if a little more light was shed on this outfit. Readers may find a glance at this post 'Ten reasons to vote for G4S as the World's Worst Company' might prove useful. Personally, I have no hesitation in fully endorsing the nomination.
Voting closes on January 22nd and the result will be announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos. A link to all eight contenders and the voting site can be found here.
G4S is said to be the world's largest private military and security company with operations in 125 countries employing 657,000 people. Seeing as they are destined to become one of the key players in privatising the Probation Service here in England and Wales, I feel it would be good if a little more light was shed on this outfit. Readers may find a glance at this post 'Ten reasons to vote for G4S as the World's Worst Company' might prove useful. Personally, I have no hesitation in fully endorsing the nomination.
Voting closes on January 22nd and the result will be announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos. A link to all eight contenders and the voting site can be found here.
Policy-Based Evidence
I sincerely hope Professor Paul Senior of Sheffield Hallam University will not mind me pinching the wonderful notion of 'policy-based evidence' rather than 'evidence-based policy' to describe Chris Grayling's recently announced dogma-driven dismemberment of the Probation Service.
In a most thoughtful and reflective blog post entitled 'An emotional response to Grayling's consultation' he says:-
Having spent 37 years in and around the probation service I have become used to dark predictions about its future. But when respected commentators such as Rob Allen tweets simply ‘RIP Probation’ and Tim Newburn talks about the ‘death knell for probation’ and a whole host of communications in the social media replicate that sense of despair that these new MOJ consultation proposals on probation have generated, despite my personal commitment to optimism, I do feel somewhat downhearted about the future for probation. Therefore I thought I would write this blog not as a carefully worded academic response to the consultation I have six weeks to produce that, though the track record of the current government actually listening to evidenced-informed practice is woefully poor anyway. But rather I want to focus on my gut level feelings as I strongly identify with those who spend their lives supporting, defending, promoting, working in and with probation and occasionally berating the probation service in all its successes and failures. Is time being called on the careers of so many dedicated and exceptionally skilled probation staff?
Probation has been described today as the cinderella of the criminal justice system. It has always had, either an achilles heel, or a genuine difficulty in describing itself effectively to the public. When I started as a probation officer circa 1977 I would be approached on the streets of my patch to be asked all sorts of questions about crime and disorder. Instinctively the public knew what probation was about then – individuals dedicated to sorting out as best it could, societies misfits and strugglers. It felt as if, though not easy to articulate, the public just knew what the probation service stood for in ways which was less clear for social workers, community workers or educational welfare officers for instance. We have lost that community awareness and support in the subsequent thirty years.
I would highly recommend reading the complete post here.
In a most thoughtful and reflective blog post entitled 'An emotional response to Grayling's consultation' he says:-
Having spent 37 years in and around the probation service I have become used to dark predictions about its future. But when respected commentators such as Rob Allen tweets simply ‘RIP Probation’ and Tim Newburn talks about the ‘death knell for probation’ and a whole host of communications in the social media replicate that sense of despair that these new MOJ consultation proposals on probation have generated, despite my personal commitment to optimism, I do feel somewhat downhearted about the future for probation. Therefore I thought I would write this blog not as a carefully worded academic response to the consultation I have six weeks to produce that, though the track record of the current government actually listening to evidenced-informed practice is woefully poor anyway. But rather I want to focus on my gut level feelings as I strongly identify with those who spend their lives supporting, defending, promoting, working in and with probation and occasionally berating the probation service in all its successes and failures. Is time being called on the careers of so many dedicated and exceptionally skilled probation staff?
Probation has been described today as the cinderella of the criminal justice system. It has always had, either an achilles heel, or a genuine difficulty in describing itself effectively to the public. When I started as a probation officer circa 1977 I would be approached on the streets of my patch to be asked all sorts of questions about crime and disorder. Instinctively the public knew what probation was about then – individuals dedicated to sorting out as best it could, societies misfits and strugglers. It felt as if, though not easy to articulate, the public just knew what the probation service stood for in ways which was less clear for social workers, community workers or educational welfare officers for instance. We have lost that community awareness and support in the subsequent thirty years.
I would highly recommend reading the complete post here.
Sunday, 13 January 2013
A Raised Eyebrow
The British are well known for having virtually invented the concept of understatement. I'm sure I heard a story from the Korean War when urgent help was not forthcoming from our American allies in response to radio messages that referred to things 'getting a bit sticky'. I guess only a Brit would realise the significance of such a statement meaning that things were actually dire.
Well, thoroughly in keeping with this spirit, I notice that the Probation Chiefs Association have responded to Chris Grayling's decision to virtually abolish Probation as we know it by saying that they have 'significant concerns'. The sort of verbal equivalent of a 'raised eyebrow'. Their statement reads as follows:-
Probation Chiefs have expressed significant concerns about proposals for the future of probation work in England and Wales, outlined by the Secretary of State today (Wed 9th January).
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: “The public sector Probation Service will retain ultimate responsibility for public protection and will manage directly those offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm to the public.”
Well, thoroughly in keeping with this spirit, I notice that the Probation Chiefs Association have responded to Chris Grayling's decision to virtually abolish Probation as we know it by saying that they have 'significant concerns'. The sort of verbal equivalent of a 'raised eyebrow'. Their statement reads as follows:-
Probation Chiefs have expressed significant concerns about proposals for the future of probation work in England and Wales, outlined by the Secretary of State today (Wed 9th January).
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: “The public sector Probation Service will retain ultimate responsibility for public protection and will manage directly those offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm to the public.”
We believe that these cases will be the 50,000 offenders, of the 240,000 currently managed by probation, assessed as high risk of harm.The Justice Secretary also said: “The great majority of community sentences and rehabilitation work will be delivered by the private sector and voluntary organisations, which have particular expertise in this area.”
Although these offenders are deemed medium and low risk of harm, they include child protection cases, violence against the person and domestic violence cases. This group also includes offenders at high risk of reoffending, such as prolific burglars, chaotic drug users and gang members. These are all complex and potentially dangerous individuals who require professional expertise in their management.
Although these offenders are deemed medium and low risk of harm, they include child protection cases, violence against the person and domestic violence cases. This group also includes offenders at high risk of reoffending, such as prolific burglars, chaotic drug users and gang members. These are all complex and potentially dangerous individuals who require professional expertise in their management.
The Government’s model will also require significant movements of cases between the public sector and new providers, as around a quarter of all offenders change risk during the course of their sentence. Moving cases between different organisations could increase the risk to the public due to a lack of clarity over who is accountable for the management of the case. The assessment, case management and ongoing risk management of cases should not be split in this way. Public sector probation should continue to deliver this function in its entirety – otherwise clear lines of accountability and an ability to protect the public from changing levels of risk will be lost.
The Secretary of State has used the high reconviction rates for short sentence prisoners as justification for reforming probation, when, in fact, probation has never been given any responsibility for managing these sentences. While we welcome the new focus on community licence conditions in relation to short term prisoners, our expertise in reducing reoffending by 10% since 2000 provides clear evidence that we should be central to the Government’s plans. Probation reduces reoffending as well as protecting the public.
The MoJ competition for Community Payback in London took two years. This was a single service in a single area. These new proposals, with national coverage and multiple contracts, dwarf the London outsourcing. We must question the feasibility of this scale of reform within an 18-month period.
The MoJ competition for Community Payback in London took two years. This was a single service in a single area. These new proposals, with national coverage and multiple contracts, dwarf the London outsourcing. We must question the feasibility of this scale of reform within an 18-month period.
We will use the six-week consultation period to both explore critical risk issues and to establish how these plans will fit with the plethora of local commissioning arrangements that probation currently leads. Discussions with Sentencers, Police and Crime Commissioners and other key local partners will be a priority in the coming weeks.
The Probation Association have gone in for a bit of understatement too, saying they 'have issues' with the government's proposals:-
We support the Government's identification of the major gap in post-sentence supervision and interventions for prisoners released after sentences of less than 12 months and have long believed that plugging this gap should be a matter of priority. This group has the highest reoffending rates. The Secretary of State has used this high reconviction rate as justification for reforming probation, but, in fact, probation has never been given responsibility or funds to introduce these services.
We very much support the Government's focus on rehabilitation. This has long been the raison d'être of probation. The latest MoJ figures show that re-offending by those on probation has continued to steadily fall since 2000. The Secretary of State is also expecting his changes to make no more than a steady year-by-year decline in reoffending.
The Secretary of State has put his proposals out for consultation for six weeks. We want to to work with Government to overcome many significant issues the proposals raise, including:
- Meeting the ambitious - given recent comparable experience - timetable for change, while at the same time ensuring that the public continues to be well-protected
- Securing a safe, efficient and accountable way to achieve the Secretary of State's vision of probation protecting the public and managing risk, when delivery of the great majority of community sentences and rehabilitation work is in the private sector and voluntary organisations
- Ensuring the public is protected under a system that moves cases between different organisations, depending on the level of risk. A quarter of all offenders change risk during the course of their sentence
- Ensuring that the increase in national commissioning does not replicate the failures and poor service from current national contracts
- Fitting the plans with the Government's localism agenda, including the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioners and the plethora of local commissioning and partnership arrangements with which probation is currently involved, or leads
- Explaining to staff, probation stakeholders and others how these changes will improve the current system, in the absence of evidence from, for example, specific pilots or research
Details of the proposals and consultation document can be found here. You have until 22nd February to make your views known. This article from the Guardian gives a bit more background and analysis, including Graylings admission that 'reductions in reoffending cannot be expected overnight'. Maybe not till he's moved on to his next post even.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Creaming and Parking
Well would you believe it? According to this Guardian piece, Professor Roy Sainsbury of York University has discovered that:-
The government's flagship welfare-to-work programme is giving priority to "job-ready" claimants ahead of those who have been unemployed for long periods because of sickness, an official assessment has found.
In the first official evaluation of the £3bn work programme, the report, by York university's social policy research unit, says private firms, which are paid for getting an unemployed person into a long-term job, are "openly seeing their most job-ready participants more frequently than those with more severe barriers to work".
But of course the suspicions about 'creaming and parking' have been around for a long time as discussed here in 2010 in relation to Pathways to Work:-
A new research report on the "impact of outcome-based contracting" in provider-led Pathways contains awkward conclusions about the effects of outcome based delivery. It shows that providers have been driven towards "creaming" and "parking" of clients. And it concludes that "providers should be paid on the basis of a wider range of outcomes".
The report says that a culture of “business survival and job security” led to creaming being considered “as appropriate behaviour” in a target-setting environment. Equally, ‘parking’ was seen as acceptable “where there was a clear management steer, for disengaged clients lacking in motivation and for clients who were seriously ill or awaiting treatment.”
The full report can be accessed here. All this is of course extremely relevant to Chris Grayling's recently announced privatisation of the vast bulk of probation's work. Contractors will be rewarded on a Payment by Results basis and the term 'disengaged clients' is one very familiar to probation officers.
The government's flagship welfare-to-work programme is giving priority to "job-ready" claimants ahead of those who have been unemployed for long periods because of sickness, an official assessment has found.
In the first official evaluation of the £3bn work programme, the report, by York university's social policy research unit, says private firms, which are paid for getting an unemployed person into a long-term job, are "openly seeing their most job-ready participants more frequently than those with more severe barriers to work".
The academic authors warn: "It is not yet possible … to draw firm conclusions about the existence or extent of creaming and parking".
But Roy Sainsbury, professor at the social policy research unit, said there existed an issue for the work programme. "The philosophy of the government's plan was that you would give huge amounts of money to get someone into work if they had had, for example, an alcohol problem. [It appears] there's no evidence that firms are responding to those incentives."
But of course the suspicions about 'creaming and parking' have been around for a long time as discussed here in 2010 in relation to Pathways to Work:-
A new research report on the "impact of outcome-based contracting" in provider-led Pathways contains awkward conclusions about the effects of outcome based delivery. It shows that providers have been driven towards "creaming" and "parking" of clients. And it concludes that "providers should be paid on the basis of a wider range of outcomes".
The report says that a culture of “business survival and job security” led to creaming being considered “as appropriate behaviour” in a target-setting environment. Equally, ‘parking’ was seen as acceptable “where there was a clear management steer, for disengaged clients lacking in motivation and for clients who were seriously ill or awaiting treatment.”
The full report can be accessed here. All this is of course extremely relevant to Chris Grayling's recently announced privatisation of the vast bulk of probation's work. Contractors will be rewarded on a Payment by Results basis and the term 'disengaged clients' is one very familiar to probation officers.
Friday, 11 January 2013
Titan Returns!
The new darling of the Tory party Chris Grayling is clearly intent on creating the impression that he's a man of action by announcing the largest prison closure programme just days after signing Probation's death warrant.
You will recall that the previous Justice Secretary Ken Clarke started the ball rolling with some modest closures such as HMP Lancaster, at the time the oldest prison still in operation by far. Of the new batch set for closure, HMP Shrewsbury and HMP Shepton Mallet were also in Ken's sights but in the end had a stay of execution. Of course as well as being old they are also 'listed' as being of considerable historic importance and finding suitable alternative uses will pose quite a problem, especially during the present economic climate. This is especially true of Shepton Mallet whose high walls absolutely dominate the town centre and it's to be hoped will not blight it for too long.
In addition to the significant job losses that will no doubt heavily affect a small community like Shepton Mallet, there is the no small matter of what to do with the current inmates, all of whom are life sentence prisoners and many have been settled in the place for years. It probably won't generate much sympathy, but I know from experience that some very long term prisoners will become institutionalised to the point where release becomes almost impossible and I think Shepton is currently home to quite a number of these. Closure is going to be very unsettling indeed for some.
Other prisons set to close are HMP's Kingston, Bullwood Hall, Canterbury and Gloucester with partial closures of Camp Hill, Chelmsford and Hull. This removes 2614 places from the nominal estate, but there are plans for new wings or 'house blocks' at HMP's Parc, Peterborough, the Mount and Thameside totalling 1260 beds. However, in a move designed I suspect to put the wind up the Prison Officers Association and presage further closures, the government have also raised the spectre of a 'super' prison again holding about 2,000 inmates.
Of course this idea was roundly condemned when Jack Straw and the previous Labour Administration proposed three mighty 'Titan' prisons of up to 2,500 inmates each, no doubt to be run by a private contractor. This might just be a bit of kite-flying by Chris Grayling in order to test reaction again and irritate the POA, but the choice of possible locations is intriguing to say the least. Only Wales, north west England or London are suggested as possible lucky recipients. In the end it's all about saving money and clearly there are significant economies of scale to be had in large prisons, whatever Chris Graying says about better training facilities etc etc - all a distraction from this key driver.
Interestingly, I note that HMP Dartmoor survives once more and I can only assume that the landlord, HRH The Prince of Wales in the form of the Duchy of Cornwall, is driving a particularly hard bargain before agreeing to accept return of the gatehouse keys!
You will recall that the previous Justice Secretary Ken Clarke started the ball rolling with some modest closures such as HMP Lancaster, at the time the oldest prison still in operation by far. Of the new batch set for closure, HMP Shrewsbury and HMP Shepton Mallet were also in Ken's sights but in the end had a stay of execution. Of course as well as being old they are also 'listed' as being of considerable historic importance and finding suitable alternative uses will pose quite a problem, especially during the present economic climate. This is especially true of Shepton Mallet whose high walls absolutely dominate the town centre and it's to be hoped will not blight it for too long.
In addition to the significant job losses that will no doubt heavily affect a small community like Shepton Mallet, there is the no small matter of what to do with the current inmates, all of whom are life sentence prisoners and many have been settled in the place for years. It probably won't generate much sympathy, but I know from experience that some very long term prisoners will become institutionalised to the point where release becomes almost impossible and I think Shepton is currently home to quite a number of these. Closure is going to be very unsettling indeed for some.
Other prisons set to close are HMP's Kingston, Bullwood Hall, Canterbury and Gloucester with partial closures of Camp Hill, Chelmsford and Hull. This removes 2614 places from the nominal estate, but there are plans for new wings or 'house blocks' at HMP's Parc, Peterborough, the Mount and Thameside totalling 1260 beds. However, in a move designed I suspect to put the wind up the Prison Officers Association and presage further closures, the government have also raised the spectre of a 'super' prison again holding about 2,000 inmates.
Of course this idea was roundly condemned when Jack Straw and the previous Labour Administration proposed three mighty 'Titan' prisons of up to 2,500 inmates each, no doubt to be run by a private contractor. This might just be a bit of kite-flying by Chris Grayling in order to test reaction again and irritate the POA, but the choice of possible locations is intriguing to say the least. Only Wales, north west England or London are suggested as possible lucky recipients. In the end it's all about saving money and clearly there are significant economies of scale to be had in large prisons, whatever Chris Graying says about better training facilities etc etc - all a distraction from this key driver.
Interestingly, I note that HMP Dartmoor survives once more and I can only assume that the landlord, HRH The Prince of Wales in the form of the Duchy of Cornwall, is driving a particularly hard bargain before agreeing to accept return of the gatehouse keys!
Thursday, 10 January 2013
Oh, How brave Minister!
We all know bears crap in the woods, so I guess it's no surprise that the Daily Telegraph has warmly welcomed Chris Graylings's announcement of Probation's demise yesterday:-
"Mr Grayling was accused by the probation union Napo of displaying an ideological hostility to the public sector. Yet his approach is reassuringly pragmatic: he is promoting this policy because he thinks it will work. The aim is to harness the expertise and efficiency of the private sector to overcome the barriers to rehabilitation. It is on the Left, wedded to delivery solely by the public sector even when it fails abjectly, that the ideologues are to be found. Mr Grayling has produced the sort of imaginative thinking needed to bring about the public service reforms taxpayers are entitled to expect. He also showed that uncompromisingly Tory policies can emerge despite the constraints of Coalition deal-making – Cabinet colleagues should take note."
I love that bit about him being "reassuringly pragmatic: he is promoting this policy because he thinks it will work" - that's alright then, and just look at his track record with Payment by Results when he was at the DWP. In answer to difficult questions yesterday about how it will all work, I note that his stock answers included a touching belief in the 'ability of the contract to cover everything', you know just like with Welfare to Work contracts or the West Coast Mainline even. By the way, for a good resume of how contractors can fiddle and defraud under PbR, look here.
As expected, NAPO were able to remind Chris Grayling and the Daily Telegraph that if there are to be any accusations of an ideological nature, they fit far more comfortably at the door of the government:-
Harry Fletcher, Napo Assistant General Secretary, said: “This decision is astonishing. The Probation Service in England and Wales met all its targets during the financial year 2011/12. Indeed last year it won the prestigious British Quality Foundation Gold Award for Excellence, was commended on its work and told it was probably the best organisation to provide these services. This move, therefore, is purely ideological. It is being rushed through without proper thought to the consequences. Issues of accountability have not been dealt with. The policy flies against the government’s localism agenda; the government is proposing that the Probation Service is reorganised twice in six months, which is impossible; issues of transfer and pension deficits have not been resolved; there is no plan for dealing with the escalation or decline of risk of individual offenders. If this plan proceeds it will be chaotic and will compromise public protection”. He added: “Some ministers may claim that the Probation Service is a failure because of high reoffending rates amongst short-term prisoners; but Probation has no statutory responsibility for supervising anybody sentenced to 12 months or less. Reoffending rates for the individuals that Probation does supervise are much improved; those who participate in programmes have a reoffending rate now of 35%. This is a success story that the government should be building on, not destroying”.
So, what sort of landscape is 'bold' Chris Grayling taking Probation into? He wants to involve the private sector in order to drive costs down, supervise more people for less money and reduce reoffending. We're all going to remember that Chris when the inevitable happens. Going on the track record of Welfare to Work, PbR is virtually a charter for companies to fiddle money out of the government. And look what targets in the NHS did at Mid Staffordshire, or cost cutting with Railtrack did. That's a bit extreme you might say, but just in case people have forgotten, in our line of work on occasion people die or are seriously injured as a direct consequence of action or omission.
You see the problem with Probation and matters of risk is that measuring it is not a science. I know management and NOMS have spent the last few years pretending that it is with OASys, but the reality is that a low risk client you shunted off to a private contractor just might go out and murder their partner tonight. The answer that 'but they were low risk' will seem a little lame the following day and you'd better have your ducks in a row for the Serious Further Offence Enquiry when minor lapses in procedure are identified. You will have to adequately explain the absence of a crystal ball that showed risk had suddenly increased.
I would venture to suggest that when such incidents occur, as they inevitably will, it is not going to play well in the press or indeed with the wider public. However, hopefully the Minister will be prepared for the reputational damage that will result, both personal and departmental, and indeed have a set of scapegoats lined up ready, if not willing, to take the wrap. (G4S and Serco particularly take note). In fact it's all neatly summed up by that wonderful line in 'Yes Minister' when the Permanent Secretary responds to his Minister's decision "Oh, how brave Minister!"
"Mr Grayling was accused by the probation union Napo of displaying an ideological hostility to the public sector. Yet his approach is reassuringly pragmatic: he is promoting this policy because he thinks it will work. The aim is to harness the expertise and efficiency of the private sector to overcome the barriers to rehabilitation. It is on the Left, wedded to delivery solely by the public sector even when it fails abjectly, that the ideologues are to be found. Mr Grayling has produced the sort of imaginative thinking needed to bring about the public service reforms taxpayers are entitled to expect. He also showed that uncompromisingly Tory policies can emerge despite the constraints of Coalition deal-making – Cabinet colleagues should take note."
I love that bit about him being "reassuringly pragmatic: he is promoting this policy because he thinks it will work" - that's alright then, and just look at his track record with Payment by Results when he was at the DWP. In answer to difficult questions yesterday about how it will all work, I note that his stock answers included a touching belief in the 'ability of the contract to cover everything', you know just like with Welfare to Work contracts or the West Coast Mainline even. By the way, for a good resume of how contractors can fiddle and defraud under PbR, look here.
As expected, NAPO were able to remind Chris Grayling and the Daily Telegraph that if there are to be any accusations of an ideological nature, they fit far more comfortably at the door of the government:-
Harry Fletcher, Napo Assistant General Secretary, said: “This decision is astonishing. The Probation Service in England and Wales met all its targets during the financial year 2011/12. Indeed last year it won the prestigious British Quality Foundation Gold Award for Excellence, was commended on its work and told it was probably the best organisation to provide these services. This move, therefore, is purely ideological. It is being rushed through without proper thought to the consequences. Issues of accountability have not been dealt with. The policy flies against the government’s localism agenda; the government is proposing that the Probation Service is reorganised twice in six months, which is impossible; issues of transfer and pension deficits have not been resolved; there is no plan for dealing with the escalation or decline of risk of individual offenders. If this plan proceeds it will be chaotic and will compromise public protection”. He added: “Some ministers may claim that the Probation Service is a failure because of high reoffending rates amongst short-term prisoners; but Probation has no statutory responsibility for supervising anybody sentenced to 12 months or less. Reoffending rates for the individuals that Probation does supervise are much improved; those who participate in programmes have a reoffending rate now of 35%. This is a success story that the government should be building on, not destroying”.
So, what sort of landscape is 'bold' Chris Grayling taking Probation into? He wants to involve the private sector in order to drive costs down, supervise more people for less money and reduce reoffending. We're all going to remember that Chris when the inevitable happens. Going on the track record of Welfare to Work, PbR is virtually a charter for companies to fiddle money out of the government. And look what targets in the NHS did at Mid Staffordshire, or cost cutting with Railtrack did. That's a bit extreme you might say, but just in case people have forgotten, in our line of work on occasion people die or are seriously injured as a direct consequence of action or omission.
You see the problem with Probation and matters of risk is that measuring it is not a science. I know management and NOMS have spent the last few years pretending that it is with OASys, but the reality is that a low risk client you shunted off to a private contractor just might go out and murder their partner tonight. The answer that 'but they were low risk' will seem a little lame the following day and you'd better have your ducks in a row for the Serious Further Offence Enquiry when minor lapses in procedure are identified. You will have to adequately explain the absence of a crystal ball that showed risk had suddenly increased.
I would venture to suggest that when such incidents occur, as they inevitably will, it is not going to play well in the press or indeed with the wider public. However, hopefully the Minister will be prepared for the reputational damage that will result, both personal and departmental, and indeed have a set of scapegoats lined up ready, if not willing, to take the wrap. (G4S and Serco particularly take note). In fact it's all neatly summed up by that wonderful line in 'Yes Minister' when the Permanent Secretary responds to his Minister's decision "Oh, how brave Minister!"
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
A Grown Up Discussion
So, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wants to have a 'grown up discussion' about his barking mad idea to privatise the bulk of probation work in order to reduce reoffending, save money and better protect the public.A full 5 weeks have been felt sufficient for this to happen, but I think most people will require a great deal less time in order to spot the potential pitfalls in such a crazy idea.
I notice that the Labour Party have been quick to label the plans as a 'reckless gamble' but of course they set the whole shambolic treatment of probation in train long ago with the Carter Review. For a short and concise description of the background to the present situation we find ourselves in, I suggest this post written in 2009 is as good as any. The fact is that probation has been treated as a political football by both main parties for years and neither can be trusted to talk any sense on the subject at all.
So what is it exactly that Chris Grayling is proposing? In essence he wants to entrust the supervision of medium and low risk offenders to private security companies and charitable groups and pay them according to how successful they are in preventing reoffending. This is the new magic bullet called 'Payment by Results' - an idea that still remains largely untried and untested, but will nevertheless be rolled out despite clear recent evidence of fraud and fiddling in the 'welfare to work' sector.
This article from the Guardian last May and written by Geoff Dobson a former probation chief explains what other problems will flow from this proposal. I note that Liz Calderbank, HM Chief Inspector of Probation was quick off the mark this morning on BBC radio 4's Today Programme in raising concerns and we can no doubt expect NAPO to be weighing in shortly.
In order to be balanced I had better say that the only good news in all this is the decision to make all short term prisoners, that is those serving twelve months or less, subject of some form of statutory supervision. This is long overdue, but governments of both colours felt the cost not to be justified in the past. It will seriously piss off a lot of repeat short term offenders of course who have been used to not having to bother about the attention of probation officers, but it will have to be paid for out of the existing total, and reducing, NOMS budget, so it doesn't require a genius to see what problems this innovation will bring.
I notice that the Labour Party have been quick to label the plans as a 'reckless gamble' but of course they set the whole shambolic treatment of probation in train long ago with the Carter Review. For a short and concise description of the background to the present situation we find ourselves in, I suggest this post written in 2009 is as good as any. The fact is that probation has been treated as a political football by both main parties for years and neither can be trusted to talk any sense on the subject at all.
So what is it exactly that Chris Grayling is proposing? In essence he wants to entrust the supervision of medium and low risk offenders to private security companies and charitable groups and pay them according to how successful they are in preventing reoffending. This is the new magic bullet called 'Payment by Results' - an idea that still remains largely untried and untested, but will nevertheless be rolled out despite clear recent evidence of fraud and fiddling in the 'welfare to work' sector.
This article from the Guardian last May and written by Geoff Dobson a former probation chief explains what other problems will flow from this proposal. I note that Liz Calderbank, HM Chief Inspector of Probation was quick off the mark this morning on BBC radio 4's Today Programme in raising concerns and we can no doubt expect NAPO to be weighing in shortly.
In order to be balanced I had better say that the only good news in all this is the decision to make all short term prisoners, that is those serving twelve months or less, subject of some form of statutory supervision. This is long overdue, but governments of both colours felt the cost not to be justified in the past. It will seriously piss off a lot of repeat short term offenders of course who have been used to not having to bother about the attention of probation officers, but it will have to be paid for out of the existing total, and reducing, NOMS budget, so it doesn't require a genius to see what problems this innovation will bring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)