I suspect like a lot of people, I'm still coming to terms with the news that Inspector Gadget has called it a day on his blog. His incisive and skillful writing was one of the reasons why I took the plunge and started this blog in September 2010.
I certainly didn't always agree with his views, but his colourful description of life on The Swamp, the characters and situations he encountered on a daily basis and the obvious care and concern with which he went about the business of 'coppering', I found utterly riveting.
To us probation officers, it was also all too familiar. No great surprise there I suppose because essentially we see the same people, but for different purposes and at different times. Much of his writing was as sensitive as it was provocative. Undoubtedly as moving or annoying in equal measure on occasion, but always a good read as the nearly 13 million hits bear testament to.
That is an incredible achievement and yet again underlines the sheer power of the internet as a platform for discussion and informing, free of political or other interference. But there has to be meaningful content and Gadget supplied that in shed loads. It's time-consuming, tiring and feeding the monster can be quite a challenge. Not surprisingly he says he ran out of different things to say, but it took seven years!
While it lasted and for all intents and purposes, Gadget's blog was the unofficial voice of British policing. The place you went to first when something was 'kicking-off' or tragedy had struck. The vast numbers of comments that flooded in after each new post gave us all an insight into what might sometimes be unkindly termed the 'canteen-culture' of British bobbies, but I'd rather that than sanitised press releases or platitudinous management pronouncements.
Inspector Gadget, you rattled cages and made me laugh. You helped remind me about the power of words and the telling of a good story. You confirmed that we are still very lucky to have policing by general consent in this country. I bet the Home Secretary won't miss you, but I have already.
Best wishes for the future Inspector!
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Tuesday, 12 March 2013
Gagged!
I'ts becoming increasingly clear that the government has lost the argument in relation to privatising most of the probation service by means of a Payment by Results method. Even though the civil servants at both the Cabinet Office and Treasury have very serious concerns and most of the 580 written submissions during the consultation period are highly critical, Chris Grayling does not quite feel ready to announce a change of direction.
What does an organisation or individual do when it knows it's plans are going seriously awry and begins to get rattled by voices of objection and criticism? When it's competency is being questioned and some reputational damage is looming on the horizon? Well, if you're a famous footballer or tv personality, you reach for a 'super' injunction. If you're an NHS Hospital Trust you arrange comprehensive secrecy clauses. Or if you're the government, you gag troublesome probation Chief Executives.
There is now clear evidence that CEO's of all probation trusts in England and Wales have been threatened with disciplinary action should they have the temerity to continue with public questioning or criticism of the government's privatisation plans for the service. Twitter accounts are being assiduously monitored for any dissent by NOMS officials in actions that must seem reminiscent of the People's Republic of China.
None of this should be that surprising though because politics is basically a dirty game where pretty much the ends justify the means. Where spin and dissembling might fail, threats and bullying might work.
We all know that NOMS control of the probation service is pretty much dysfunctional anyway and if confirmation was required, look no further than Liz Calderbank HM Chief Inspector of Probation giving evidence to a Commons Select Committee in November 2012:-
"The National Audit Office (NAO) rightly identifies tensions in the relationship between NOMS and probation trusts. In my view, these result as much from the history of NOMS’ development and the different organisational structures of the prison and probation services as any failings in its management. The restructure of NOMS HQ was, as the report states, well received and both the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NOMS and the Director responsible for the probation service are spoken of positively by probation trusts.
What does an organisation or individual do when it knows it's plans are going seriously awry and begins to get rattled by voices of objection and criticism? When it's competency is being questioned and some reputational damage is looming on the horizon? Well, if you're a famous footballer or tv personality, you reach for a 'super' injunction. If you're an NHS Hospital Trust you arrange comprehensive secrecy clauses. Or if you're the government, you gag troublesome probation Chief Executives.
There is now clear evidence that CEO's of all probation trusts in England and Wales have been threatened with disciplinary action should they have the temerity to continue with public questioning or criticism of the government's privatisation plans for the service. Twitter accounts are being assiduously monitored for any dissent by NOMS officials in actions that must seem reminiscent of the People's Republic of China.
None of this should be that surprising though because politics is basically a dirty game where pretty much the ends justify the means. Where spin and dissembling might fail, threats and bullying might work.
We all know that NOMS control of the probation service is pretty much dysfunctional anyway and if confirmation was required, look no further than Liz Calderbank HM Chief Inspector of Probation giving evidence to a Commons Select Committee in November 2012:-
"The National Audit Office (NAO) rightly identifies tensions in the relationship between NOMS and probation trusts. In my view, these result as much from the history of NOMS’ development and the different organisational structures of the prison and probation services as any failings in its management. The restructure of NOMS HQ was, as the report states, well received and both the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NOMS and the Director responsible for the probation service are spoken of positively by probation trusts.
Nevertheless, there is, I believe, an inherent dissonance in the NOMS model, which essentially incorporates two organisations with different functions and governance arrangements. Unlike the prison service, which is a national organisation, the probation trust CEOs report to a locally managed Board but are accountable to NOMS for their achievement of targets. When these arrangements are considered in the historical context of a probation service that has gone through four major reorganisations over the past 15 years, and is currently awaiting the response to the probation review which will herald yet another one, it’s not surprising that relations are a little tense.
What this means is, given that the line management arrangements of the probation service is different from those of the prison service, as is its history and its focus on the community, so the dialogue NOMS has with probation trusts also has to be different. And this isn’t achieved with sufficient consistency. As a result, the work of the probation service is not fully understood at the centre and as a consequence not properly valued and too easily dismissed."
In a situation where things look like they're rapidly going 'pear-shaped' the last thing Chris Grayling wants is probation CEO's just rubbing it in how crap the whole idea is beginning to sound. The mood could get a lot nastier of course with reports of campaign posters being removed in London and dark rumours as to how the Serco Community Payback contract is being operated there.
This is very important for the government's privatisation agenda and clearly there is a keen desire to make sure a tight lid is kept on any bad news. You will recall that Heather Munro, London CEO, recently questioned via twitter Chris Grayling's assertion that 'the contract was delivering savings of 40%.' She described it as 'pure fantasy' with savings 'nearer 20%.'
Sign the No10 petition here.
This is very important for the government's privatisation agenda and clearly there is a keen desire to make sure a tight lid is kept on any bad news. You will recall that Heather Munro, London CEO, recently questioned via twitter Chris Grayling's assertion that 'the contract was delivering savings of 40%.' She described it as 'pure fantasy' with savings 'nearer 20%.'
Sign the No10 petition here.
Monday, 11 March 2013
The Human Cost
I've often bemoaned that the world of probation is largely a mystery to most people. Trying to shed some light on this most mysterious of occupations was one of the main aims in starting the blog in the first place. To be frank, widespread ignorance of our role, significance and remit is one of the main reasons why both main political parties have been able to mess around with us over recent years, and finally privatise us.
As a profession we've probably not helped. We've done rather too good a job of respecting client confidentiality and our natural reticence has often meant that important stories have gone untold. However, as all probation officers know, every single client's journey through life and to the doors of a court is different, sometimes tragic and often amazing.
It's not an overstatement to say that sometimes we literally put highly-damaged people back together and help enable them to lead happier and fulfilled lives free of offending. That process, generally referred to as rehabilitation, sounds simple and straightforward in the current debate about a 'revolution' being required The answer according to the government is to privatise most of the probation service and bring in contractors remunerated on a Payment by Result basis.
But even government can see that handing over all the 'risky' cases to the likes of G4S might be just a tad, well risky, so the plan is that they will in all probability stay with a rump public service. The only trouble is how 'risk' is defined and how it can be measured? It's not just risk in relation to serious public harm. What about the risk to an individual of their early life experiences? Or a person's innate character, or state of mind or current circumstances? Is it not a valuable, socially-useful thing to be concerned about a person's risk to themselves?
In the brave new world of probation marketisation, what will happen to the difficult cases like the not untypical story of 'J' highlighted by a probation officer guest-posting on the Ladies' Room blog? The author argues that:-
"The intervention worked with J because of a consistent approach which was costly to me on a time management and emotional level. J would never cross the threshold of the Probation Service in a newly privatised regime."
The story begins here and I hope the author does not mind me quoting:-
As a profession we've probably not helped. We've done rather too good a job of respecting client confidentiality and our natural reticence has often meant that important stories have gone untold. However, as all probation officers know, every single client's journey through life and to the doors of a court is different, sometimes tragic and often amazing.
It's not an overstatement to say that sometimes we literally put highly-damaged people back together and help enable them to lead happier and fulfilled lives free of offending. That process, generally referred to as rehabilitation, sounds simple and straightforward in the current debate about a 'revolution' being required The answer according to the government is to privatise most of the probation service and bring in contractors remunerated on a Payment by Result basis.
But even government can see that handing over all the 'risky' cases to the likes of G4S might be just a tad, well risky, so the plan is that they will in all probability stay with a rump public service. The only trouble is how 'risk' is defined and how it can be measured? It's not just risk in relation to serious public harm. What about the risk to an individual of their early life experiences? Or a person's innate character, or state of mind or current circumstances? Is it not a valuable, socially-useful thing to be concerned about a person's risk to themselves?
In the brave new world of probation marketisation, what will happen to the difficult cases like the not untypical story of 'J' highlighted by a probation officer guest-posting on the Ladies' Room blog? The author argues that:-
"The intervention worked with J because of a consistent approach which was costly to me on a time management and emotional level. J would never cross the threshold of the Probation Service in a newly privatised regime."
The story begins here and I hope the author does not mind me quoting:-
"Being a Probation Officer for nearly 12 years has exposed me to the grittiness of humanity in all its gruesome glory, yet I still possess a belief in the capacity for change as I have witnessed the small miracles of success as a person is enabled to believe in themselves perhaps for the first time.
For those of us who have had reasonably ordinary life it is hard to understand the physical, emotional and psychological damage that is done to others in their most vulnerable childhood years. This damage shows up on brain scans as the brain fails to develop fully, stifling the future potential of that person from the very beginning. The damage manifests itself in many ways such as violence, aggression, mistrust and poor self image.
These are often the people who fall between the cracks of services and end up banned from their local GP practice and are criminalised rather than helped. I daily witness such persons in my work, the persons that even Probation Officers don’t want to work with. After some years I recognised that often the most disruptive were acting out their emotional age at which such damage occurs. It is like they get caught in a time loop of ‘fight or flight’ and can be incredibly difficult to work with, but with a lot of patience – and an understanding that they are a traumatised individual – you can help them move forward.
J was a lady who came to me with severe emotional disturbance and was diagnosed with an emotional/histrionic personality disorder. This was in the days when the psychiatric community did not believe such was treatable. J was fortunate to access treatment from the one psychiatrist in the city who did not subscribe to such a belief. I had the privilege of working with them both for over 3 years."
The whole post is well worth reading in full and I'm grateful to the person who pointed me in the direction of it.
Sign the No10 petition here.
Friday, 8 March 2013
Privatisation Roundup
The right-wing thank tank Policy Exchange held a conference recently on Payment by Results and how the Probation Service was to be privatised. Attended by all the usual suspects and addressed by both Chris Grayling and Jeremy Wright, news has been filtering out ever since.
It would seem that Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee is beginning to rattle Chris Grayling because he had quite a go at her according to this report in the Guardian:-
It would seem that Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee is beginning to rattle Chris Grayling because he had quite a go at her according to this report in the Guardian:-
At a Policy Exchange conference in London on Monday, Grayling renewed his attack on Hodge, claiming she was playing politics by attacking payment by results whenever she could.
"She's wasted no time in bashing and misrepresenting the credentials of work programme. But the reality is that under the last government she served as employment minister, and millions and millions of taxpayers' money was handed to private companies without any significant measure of success or transparency," he said.
"It's madness for her to now claim that payment by results – a clear mechanism whereby providers put their own money at risk before they can demonstrate an agreed measure of success – delivers a worse performance than the black hole Labour presided over before."
Apparently it's quite unusual for Ministers to be so critical of Select Committee chairs and I'd say it's a sure sign of them actually doing a thorough job of holding the Executive to account. I notice she was in fine form only yesterday making life very uncomfortable for the Charity Commission bosses for their mishandling of the Cup Trust tax avoidance 'charity.'
It seems as if the government have back-tracked a bit on there vision of every released prisoner being met at the prison gate by a volunteer peer mentor. According to this Daily Telegraph piece, Jeremy Wright is now saying that in all probability mentors will be paid:-
Mr Wright said many offenders already mentor others in custody, either to help them settle in, as reading coaches, or in other areas of education and training, and this work should continue through the prison gate.“
There must surely be potential for us to say to those offenders, ‘Look, wouldn’t you like to consider this as a career so that when you come out you will have the opportunity not just to do mentoring, but to be paid for it?’” he said.
"I think that would be attractive to a large number of former offenders.”
That's much more realistic, but clearly going to put the costs up considerably.
There's clearly a difference of opinion between the big contracting boys like G4S and the government. According to Russell Webster's report on the day and in relation to risk, G4S just want the whole of probation handing over, but Ministers don't agree according to the Daily Telegraph report:-
Mr Wright insisted public safety was paramount and said the public sector probation service would retain responsibility for high risk offenders, with private firms and charities being brought in to manage those assessed as low and medium risk.
“We believe that a professional public sector service is best placed to manage those who present highest risk of serious harm, just as we believe they are best placed to make judgments about who falls into which risk category, both at the outset and an ongoing basis.”
It can't be bad news to see the likes of G4S and the government disagreeing, so lets hope it continues.
I notice at least two Probation chiefs were present at the Policy Exchange event, Heather Munro of London who of course signed the deal with Serco for the Community Payback contract and Sarah Billiald of Kent who speaks on behalf of the Probation Chief's Association.
Finally, I see that Lord Ramsbotham has at last 'broken cover' and roundly criticised the government's proposals in the House of Lords. Well done sir!
Sign the No10 petition here.
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Profit or Philanthropy?
I notice that Guardian columnist Erwin Jones does not like the idea of privatising the Probation Service. His view is particularly worth noting because he's had personal experience and recently wrote a moving tribute to an officer he came into contact with whilst in prison.
In another piece on his blog he states that privatising the Service is 'morally repugnant' and invokes the memory of the founders of the modern Probation Service, like Frederic Rainer, who most probably will be revolving in his grave:-
I can’t see how a “probation officer” employed by a private contractor is going to be any more effective than a real probation officer contracted to the state. The primary motivation for the operation of a private company is profit, profit, profit. There was never any notion of Probation for Profit in the hearts of those who built the foundations of the modern probation service.
As all of us in probation know full well, there's long been a close connection between philanthropic endeavour and the state-run Service. Many probation hostels to this day are still owned and managed by charities and individual officers and local worthies have formed numerous charitable bodies over the entire life of the state-run Service.
In order to illustrate the point, here is Lord Rhodes speaking in 1985 during a debate on the Probation Service and describing what was happening in Manchester:-
Successive Home Secretaries have sincerely tried to stem the tide of increasing crime, with only limited success. We welcome the working paper Criminal Justice and the statement on national objectives and priorities for the probation service which have been issued during the past fortnight. The remarks I have to make are directed to the statement on the probation service. The statement clearly identifies the need to maintain a whole range of facilities for use by the courts and the probation service. It highlights the need to assist all those returning to everyday life from custody. To this end, we in the community are urged to rally around and to make a prime contribution by involving ourselves in the rehabilitation of the offender. Quite rightly, for without that involvement of the community in the rehabilitation of an offender, rehabilitation is a non-starter.
In 1976 we were registered as a housing association. In 1976 we had "the Lady Rhodes", a narrowboat. This is a marvellous project where probation officers give of their own time to take out young lads who have just started offending against the law. Then we had Flagg Barn, another place in Derbyshire that we have for young offenders to learn sensible adventures. Again, the probation service comes up trumps, because much is done in their own time. I shall soon be through this list. In 1979 there was Stretford, a group support scheme providing facilities for a number of probation officers in the area. In 1980 there was Leigh, a bed-sit rehabilitation unit for six homeless men discharged from prison. Then, in 1981 there was the Manchester Forward Drive Scheme, the Manchester Coach Scheme and the Manchester Day Centre for all after-care contacts, where people can put down their names so that they can keep in touch with really good influences day by day.
In 1981 there was an extension to Chadderton House to accommodate men discharged from prison. In 1982, in Manchester, we obtained paramount control of two existing and successful hostels. This is absolutely fantastic. One is for men and the other is a stopover home for young women who, shall I say, are seen and looked after, having arrived at Piccadilly Station with nowhere to go and no home. In 1982 Failsworth House was reopened for homeless males discharged from prison. Also in 1982 Leigh Hostel was opened. In 1983 seven developments were commenced. I shall come to a conclusion in a few moments. This year, Princess Margaret opened the Rhodes Centre in Oldham—a resource centre able to cater for many groups and which contains the original Anchor Club. The building had been completely gutted and rebuilt, mainly using Manpower Services labour skills. It is to be used from mid-December, and was officially opened in February.
It could be said that in many ways the development and operation of the Probation Service has been a model example of that now widely-derided concept known as The Big Society. What has been described for Manchester was replicated all over the country and my own Service has a very similar fine record of innovation and philanthropic endeavour.
It irritated me enormously when Sir Stephen Bubb, official cheer leader of the bosses for what is now referred to as the third sector, recently claimed some moral right to take back control of the Service. I'm afraid many of the organisations he speaks for nowadays appear remarkably lacking in terms of a philanthropic ethos and look pretty indistinguishable to me from all the other aspirational predators keen on grabbing our work, building empires and making money.
Sign the No10 petition here.
In another piece on his blog he states that privatising the Service is 'morally repugnant' and invokes the memory of the founders of the modern Probation Service, like Frederic Rainer, who most probably will be revolving in his grave:-
I can’t see how a “probation officer” employed by a private contractor is going to be any more effective than a real probation officer contracted to the state. The primary motivation for the operation of a private company is profit, profit, profit. There was never any notion of Probation for Profit in the hearts of those who built the foundations of the modern probation service.
As all of us in probation know full well, there's long been a close connection between philanthropic endeavour and the state-run Service. Many probation hostels to this day are still owned and managed by charities and individual officers and local worthies have formed numerous charitable bodies over the entire life of the state-run Service.
In order to illustrate the point, here is Lord Rhodes speaking in 1985 during a debate on the Probation Service and describing what was happening in Manchester:-
Successive Home Secretaries have sincerely tried to stem the tide of increasing crime, with only limited success. We welcome the working paper Criminal Justice and the statement on national objectives and priorities for the probation service which have been issued during the past fortnight. The remarks I have to make are directed to the statement on the probation service. The statement clearly identifies the need to maintain a whole range of facilities for use by the courts and the probation service. It highlights the need to assist all those returning to everyday life from custody. To this end, we in the community are urged to rally around and to make a prime contribution by involving ourselves in the rehabilitation of the offender. Quite rightly, for without that involvement of the community in the rehabilitation of an offender, rehabilitation is a non-starter.
We have been doing that in Manchester for the past 13 years; that is, carrying out the tenets which are mentioned in the two documents. Our trust is called the Selcare Trust. It comprises Crown Court judges, probation officers, magistrates and a fine lot of people from the general public. Last week, we held our annual general meeting in Manchester Town Hall. It was one of the most vibrant meetings I have attended in recent years; it was one of the finest meetings I have ever had the privilege to attend. The hall was full. It is now recognised that we are making the kind of progress that is paying off in this particular field.
I ask your Lordships to give me your indulgence when I read out the progress that we have made in Manchester during the past 13 years. If my name crops up occasionally, please forgive me. We started first with an organisation, involving the head probation officer for Manchester. In 1971 the Chadderton Guest House was opened as a rehabilitation centre for older men, to help many of the men living there avoid further crime and breakdown. In 1972 it was the Bury Family Centre for women needing help—wives of prisoners who did not know how to add up. In 1973 it was the Failsworth Guest House for homeless women and their babies, especially when leaving hospital or prison.
In 1974 it was the Oldham Anchor Club—an evening centre for the isolated and lonely, a day centre for community groups with special aims, and so on. In 1974, we had the Bolton Guest House for homeless men in single rooms; and rooms for battered wives, unmarried mothers or the homeless from care or prison. In 1975 we had the East Manchester, Beswick Guest House, for homeless young men in the 17 to 21 age group discharged from detention.
In 1981 there was an extension to Chadderton House to accommodate men discharged from prison. In 1982, in Manchester, we obtained paramount control of two existing and successful hostels. This is absolutely fantastic. One is for men and the other is a stopover home for young women who, shall I say, are seen and looked after, having arrived at Piccadilly Station with nowhere to go and no home. In 1982 Failsworth House was reopened for homeless males discharged from prison. Also in 1982 Leigh Hostel was opened. In 1983 seven developments were commenced. I shall come to a conclusion in a few moments. This year, Princess Margaret opened the Rhodes Centre in Oldham—a resource centre able to cater for many groups and which contains the original Anchor Club. The building had been completely gutted and rebuilt, mainly using Manpower Services labour skills. It is to be used from mid-December, and was officially opened in February.
It could be said that in many ways the development and operation of the Probation Service has been a model example of that now widely-derided concept known as The Big Society. What has been described for Manchester was replicated all over the country and my own Service has a very similar fine record of innovation and philanthropic endeavour.
It irritated me enormously when Sir Stephen Bubb, official cheer leader of the bosses for what is now referred to as the third sector, recently claimed some moral right to take back control of the Service. I'm afraid many of the organisations he speaks for nowadays appear remarkably lacking in terms of a philanthropic ethos and look pretty indistinguishable to me from all the other aspirational predators keen on grabbing our work, building empires and making money.
Sign the No10 petition here.
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
Juries
The subject of juries has come in for quite a bit of discussion recently as a result of the first Vicky Pryce trial and the now infamous ten questions they put to the judge. They were eventually discharged and a fresh trial ordered when unable to agree a majority verdict and raised questions as to their ability of being able to 'grasp the basics' concerning the issues involved.
Of course we can never know what went on in the jury room as such deliberations must remain sacrosanct, but the measured view seems to be that the questions arose not from ignorance, but rather from some members exasperation and a valiant effort at trying to seek confirmation of the issues and therefore a decision. Obviously this was not to be and a re-trial is in progress.
I want to highlight a case where a jury has made a decision, but a deeply disturbing one in my view. As always, any discussion of a case without full knowledge can be risky, but the case of Nicola Edgington is truely shocking and one I simply do not understand.
Most press attention has focused on the IPCC report confirming that police failed to deal correctly with this woman's numerous telephone pleas for help. As someone who had already been subject to a Hospital Order for killing her mother some years before, she was becoming desperate to be 'sectioned' because of her state of mind. In one call she reportedly said 'the last time I felt like this I killed my mother' and yet she was not assessed or detained.
Tragically for everyone concerned, because this woman was not dealt with properly, she armed herself with a knife and committed two horrific attacks on random members of the public, almost decapitating one.
I think most people hearing the broad details of such a case would not require expert psychiatric opinion to confidently come to the conclusion that at the material time the balance of her mind was significantly affected by a severe mental illness and therefore how could she be found guilty of murder?
To most people, acceptance of a guilty plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and a Hospital Restriction Order would seem much more appropriate. But instead, astonishingly in my view, a jury convicted her of murder and the judge in summing up is reported as saying 'she should take full responsibility for her actions' and gave her a tariff of 37 years.
The saddest and most worrying aspect of this case in my view is that in all probability she will at some point be transferred from prison to Special Hospital due to her psychiatric state. She needed treatment all along and if she had been dealt with correctly, a life would have been spared and another wouldn't now 'be doing life.'
Of course we can never know what went on in the jury room as such deliberations must remain sacrosanct, but the measured view seems to be that the questions arose not from ignorance, but rather from some members exasperation and a valiant effort at trying to seek confirmation of the issues and therefore a decision. Obviously this was not to be and a re-trial is in progress.
I want to highlight a case where a jury has made a decision, but a deeply disturbing one in my view. As always, any discussion of a case without full knowledge can be risky, but the case of Nicola Edgington is truely shocking and one I simply do not understand.
Most press attention has focused on the IPCC report confirming that police failed to deal correctly with this woman's numerous telephone pleas for help. As someone who had already been subject to a Hospital Order for killing her mother some years before, she was becoming desperate to be 'sectioned' because of her state of mind. In one call she reportedly said 'the last time I felt like this I killed my mother' and yet she was not assessed or detained.
Tragically for everyone concerned, because this woman was not dealt with properly, she armed herself with a knife and committed two horrific attacks on random members of the public, almost decapitating one.
I think most people hearing the broad details of such a case would not require expert psychiatric opinion to confidently come to the conclusion that at the material time the balance of her mind was significantly affected by a severe mental illness and therefore how could she be found guilty of murder?
To most people, acceptance of a guilty plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and a Hospital Restriction Order would seem much more appropriate. But instead, astonishingly in my view, a jury convicted her of murder and the judge in summing up is reported as saying 'she should take full responsibility for her actions' and gave her a tariff of 37 years.
The saddest and most worrying aspect of this case in my view is that in all probability she will at some point be transferred from prison to Special Hospital due to her psychiatric state. She needed treatment all along and if she had been dealt with correctly, a life would have been spared and another wouldn't now 'be doing life.'
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
All Targets Met
We used to have a notice on the wall that read 'All targets met; all standards achieved; all pigs fed and ready for take off!' It made me chuckle then and it still might if it didn't sound just a bit hollow nowadays.
I can't help noticing that this blog will pass 200,000 hits today. The first 100,000 took from September 2010 to January 2012, so clearly productivity and customer satisfaction is improving year upon year. Much has been achieved, but there's more to do as they say when a prison gets a really bad HMI report.
As I'm prone to do, I thought I'd look back at the very first post. It was short and to the point:-
In the Beginning
I can't help noticing that this blog will pass 200,000 hits today. The first 100,000 took from September 2010 to January 2012, so clearly productivity and customer satisfaction is improving year upon year. Much has been achieved, but there's more to do as they say when a prison gets a really bad HMI report.
As I'm prone to do, I thought I'd look back at the very first post. It was short and to the point:-
In the Beginning
All blogs have to start somewhere - and this is it. I'm fed up with work - a job I absolutely loved has gone horribly wrong and is about to get a whole lot worse. I moan endlessly to colleagues - and clients - they listen politely and think 'poor sod, he'll be retired soon'. Nobody understands what the hell probation is all about - there's never been a decent tv drama series and this void of universal ignorance is ruthlessly taken advantage of by successive governments in order to wreak havoc upon us. We've been nationalised, rationalised, marginalised, bureaucratised and will shortly be privatised. I feel helpless as this madness goes on around me and then suddenly all becomes clear - start blogging!
Nothing much has changed. I still don't think most people understand what we do and there's still no decent tv drama series, but privatisation really does seem to be just around the corner.
Writers block doesn't seem to have affected me of late and this blog remains a blissfully troll-free zone. I'd like to thank everyone for that and for the very perceptive contributions and comments from readers.
One of the extraordinary aspects of writing this blog seems to be my ability to meet self-imposed deadlines. I was always late with homework, always had extensions on essays at University and some of my PSR's have been known to go to the wire, but pretty well this blog gets new posts every morning.
I really do enjoy writing it and thank you very much for reading it!
Sign the No10 petition here.
Writers block doesn't seem to have affected me of late and this blog remains a blissfully troll-free zone. I'd like to thank everyone for that and for the very perceptive contributions and comments from readers.
One of the extraordinary aspects of writing this blog seems to be my ability to meet self-imposed deadlines. I was always late with homework, always had extensions on essays at University and some of my PSR's have been known to go to the wire, but pretty well this blog gets new posts every morning.
I really do enjoy writing it and thank you very much for reading it!
Sign the No10 petition here.
Monday, 4 March 2013
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
It's a sobering thought to reflect that it all started to go wrong for probation just as I arrived on the scene as a fresh-faced 'unconfirmed' officer. I qualified with a degree and CQSW in 1985, a year after the government published their Statement of National Objectives and Priorities (SNOP) for the Service. It took the Thatcher government a long time to get around to us, but looking back on it now and with the benefit of hindsight, it signalled the beginning of our demise. Haven't we done well to last this long?
Sadly SNOP represented a brand new way of doing government and it's continued ever since. As this Hansard report of proceedings in the House of Lords demonstrates, a number of wise Peers could see trouble ahead for us and in effect began the campaign to try and preserve the integrity of the Probation Service that continues to this day. Opening proceedings was Lord Wells-Pestell, a former probation officer, and reading the transcript some 30 years later, it contains some ominously familiar themes:-
"I am concerned—and I want to say this as nicely as I can: I do not want to be considered offensive in any way—about the competence of those at the Home Office who are responsible for the statement of objectives and priorities, who probably have had no practical experience at all of being a probation officer.
I know that the noble Lord the Minister is going to tell me that they had the experience of probation inspectors. They had that experience, but it is a very different thing, when you come to prepare and write a memorandum, to do it after discussion with some people who have worked in the field if you yourself have had no practical experience."
The debate is well worth reading in full as it canters over all the main issues of the time ranging from the lack of a plan, training, report writing, salaries, management and much more. There is even a contribution from the great Lord Longford before the Under Secretary of State rises and amongst other things introduces this very familiar sounding notion:-
"In future we shall be expecting the probation service to concentrate on making the most effective use of the resources which it has already. It must expect to meet increased demand for its services by more efficient and economical use of its existing manpower and facilities. In addition, a basis was needed for the application to the probation service of the Government's financial management initiative. The intention is to ensure that the 80 per cent. grant we pay on the probation service is related to clear objectives and is securing value for money. There can be no objection to getting more for the same amount of cash."
So what did SNOP bring to the probation party? Why joy of joys, bureaucratisation and managerialism. Just for a moment allow yourself to daydream as to what your world would be like without these two expensive innovations. I'm fortunate in that I can remember. Happily it all took a long time to reach my particular probation neck-of-the-woods as my office was both geographically and managerially distant from from Head Office. In fact the joke was that we belonged to a neighbouring Service.
We just carried on democratically deciding our own local policy for years, with the SPO being an equal participant in lively team discussions. In those days we had almost complete discretion and just followed our nose. This is from recent correspondence and utterly typical in my experience:-
"he was a Programme manager and when we had a treatment manager appointed to the team - she commented that he often did not stick to the rule book - I replied that he did not know there was a rule book!!! He just did what he thought was right - a really old style senior rather than a manager."
As usual the internet has thrown up an interesting essay on the subject by author unknown, but I hope they will forgive my quoting from it:-
According to McWilliams (1992) the arrival of management into the NPS is a recent concept within the organisations development. Up until then he believed that the service had operated under a ‘professional-administrative model,’ yet the recommendations of the Butterworth report (1972) included the need for planning and control – and thus the era of management began. This shift largely occurred through Martinson’s proclamation that Nothing Works (1974). However it is important at this stage to differentiate between the concepts of management and managerialism. The former, in the traditional sense, refers to the ‘balancing and direction of resources to achieve certain intents.’ Managerialism on the other hand refers to the ‘implementation of a variety of techniques…..within a culture of cost efficiency and service effectiveness.’ (James & Raine 1998). It is therefore the concept of managerialism which, under the guise that public services including the NPS, should be run like a business (Clarke 1994) became the transformational force for reform.
So, the inexorable march of management, ably assisted by that essential tool for any command and control structure, the bloody computer, has got us to where we are now. Just a few months away from privatisation and ultimate demise.
Sign the No10 petition here.
Sadly SNOP represented a brand new way of doing government and it's continued ever since. As this Hansard report of proceedings in the House of Lords demonstrates, a number of wise Peers could see trouble ahead for us and in effect began the campaign to try and preserve the integrity of the Probation Service that continues to this day. Opening proceedings was Lord Wells-Pestell, a former probation officer, and reading the transcript some 30 years later, it contains some ominously familiar themes:-
"I am concerned—and I want to say this as nicely as I can: I do not want to be considered offensive in any way—about the competence of those at the Home Office who are responsible for the statement of objectives and priorities, who probably have had no practical experience at all of being a probation officer.
I know that the noble Lord the Minister is going to tell me that they had the experience of probation inspectors. They had that experience, but it is a very different thing, when you come to prepare and write a memorandum, to do it after discussion with some people who have worked in the field if you yourself have had no practical experience."
The debate is well worth reading in full as it canters over all the main issues of the time ranging from the lack of a plan, training, report writing, salaries, management and much more. There is even a contribution from the great Lord Longford before the Under Secretary of State rises and amongst other things introduces this very familiar sounding notion:-
"In future we shall be expecting the probation service to concentrate on making the most effective use of the resources which it has already. It must expect to meet increased demand for its services by more efficient and economical use of its existing manpower and facilities. In addition, a basis was needed for the application to the probation service of the Government's financial management initiative. The intention is to ensure that the 80 per cent. grant we pay on the probation service is related to clear objectives and is securing value for money. There can be no objection to getting more for the same amount of cash."
So what did SNOP bring to the probation party? Why joy of joys, bureaucratisation and managerialism. Just for a moment allow yourself to daydream as to what your world would be like without these two expensive innovations. I'm fortunate in that I can remember. Happily it all took a long time to reach my particular probation neck-of-the-woods as my office was both geographically and managerially distant from from Head Office. In fact the joke was that we belonged to a neighbouring Service.
We just carried on democratically deciding our own local policy for years, with the SPO being an equal participant in lively team discussions. In those days we had almost complete discretion and just followed our nose. This is from recent correspondence and utterly typical in my experience:-
"he was a Programme manager and when we had a treatment manager appointed to the team - she commented that he often did not stick to the rule book - I replied that he did not know there was a rule book!!! He just did what he thought was right - a really old style senior rather than a manager."
As usual the internet has thrown up an interesting essay on the subject by author unknown, but I hope they will forgive my quoting from it:-
According to McWilliams (1992) the arrival of management into the NPS is a recent concept within the organisations development. Up until then he believed that the service had operated under a ‘professional-administrative model,’ yet the recommendations of the Butterworth report (1972) included the need for planning and control – and thus the era of management began. This shift largely occurred through Martinson’s proclamation that Nothing Works (1974). However it is important at this stage to differentiate between the concepts of management and managerialism. The former, in the traditional sense, refers to the ‘balancing and direction of resources to achieve certain intents.’ Managerialism on the other hand refers to the ‘implementation of a variety of techniques…..within a culture of cost efficiency and service effectiveness.’ (James & Raine 1998). It is therefore the concept of managerialism which, under the guise that public services including the NPS, should be run like a business (Clarke 1994) became the transformational force for reform.
So, the inexorable march of management, ably assisted by that essential tool for any command and control structure, the bloody computer, has got us to where we are now. Just a few months away from privatisation and ultimate demise.
Sign the No10 petition here.
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Failure Means Success
There are two types of people for whom the ability to positively reframe any situation is essential to their work - politicians and probation officers. The recent Eastleigh by-election provides us with a good example of the former. The Tories didn't win, 'but were only a thousand votes behind UKIP'. Labour didn't win 'but this is Hampshire FFS! UKIP didn't win 'but they nearly did'.
When your client has screwed-up for the third time and another SDR is required, you might note sagely, as I have done on many occasions, 'clearly Mr X does not always act in his own best interests.' Well, until I read Russell Webster's recent piece on Payment by Results and what the prospects were for it's successful roll-out by the MoJ for privatising the Probation Service, I hadn't appreciated that failure might actually be termed success.
How stupid and naive of me. The notion just needs a bit of positive reframing, as we see here from an expert in the field Frank Curran of SP Solutions commenting firstly on the Work Programme:-
I’m a long way from being an expert on employment programmes but there clearly are all sorts of issues both with the design of the Work Programme payment structure and the performance of the primes in delivering on their contracts – a headline performance less than the assumed deadweight is, on the face of it, quite dreadful. However one feature of PbR that I’ve not seen elaborated on anywhere in this context is that the amount of money paid to the primes must be far less than it would have been had the primes been more effective (the contracts after all had up to 80% PbR component). In other words PbR has not incentivised better outcomes as was hoped but it has meant that the state has not borne the full cost of service failure. This is the other side of the risk transfer issue and whilst it is a small mercy ( we would all much rather see the primes being effective and getting people into work after all) it can be seen as part-vindication of the PbR approach – the programmes failed but at least we didn’t have to pay their full cost.
Wow! I don't know about you, but I needed to read that a couple of times before the significance sank in - the programmes failed, but at least we didn't have to pay their full cost! But hang on a minute, aren't these contractors being funded in addition to the Job Centre staff? Anyway, he goes on to speculate how PbR might be regarded in relation to privatising probation:-
In this context it seems to me that the critical issue in whether or not the approach being adopted with probation will work is how much it is possible to improve on current probation performance. There is a widespread, if largely implicit view, that it's not possible to significantly improve compliance/re-offending rates. If this is true then any organisation would be foolish to commit to a contract with a significant PbR component because the likelihood of failure is pretty high; if it is not true (ie it is possible to significantly improve performance) then a contract with a significant PbR component may be attractive (provided the metrics are right etc). In reality this is very difficult to know with confidence: therefore given the likely focus on price within the process the safest strategy for a contractor to adopt is to aim to deliver the same outcomes (or even maybe worse outcomes) at much less cost – anything else is too risky. In this scenario the state ends up paying less money for the same or worse outcomes (which is what seems to have happened with the Work Programme) which can still be viewed, I suppose, as a positive outcome for the state. However for those who believe that PbR has the potential to drive major improvements in reducing recidivism this outcome would be a grave disappointment.
So, according to this expert, there's a good chance the Rehabilitation Revolution will result in the same or worse outcomes, but at less cost to the state "which can still be viewed, I suppose, as a positive outcome for the state."
Lets be absolutely clear here. The above reasoning forms part of an assessment by an insider on the case to be made for breaking up a skilled, professional and well-performing public service, on the off chance the result might be worse or no better than now, but at least it will be cheaper. Is that really what we want our public services to aspire to under private operation?
Sign the No10 petition here.
When your client has screwed-up for the third time and another SDR is required, you might note sagely, as I have done on many occasions, 'clearly Mr X does not always act in his own best interests.' Well, until I read Russell Webster's recent piece on Payment by Results and what the prospects were for it's successful roll-out by the MoJ for privatising the Probation Service, I hadn't appreciated that failure might actually be termed success.
How stupid and naive of me. The notion just needs a bit of positive reframing, as we see here from an expert in the field Frank Curran of SP Solutions commenting firstly on the Work Programme:-
I’m a long way from being an expert on employment programmes but there clearly are all sorts of issues both with the design of the Work Programme payment structure and the performance of the primes in delivering on their contracts – a headline performance less than the assumed deadweight is, on the face of it, quite dreadful. However one feature of PbR that I’ve not seen elaborated on anywhere in this context is that the amount of money paid to the primes must be far less than it would have been had the primes been more effective (the contracts after all had up to 80% PbR component). In other words PbR has not incentivised better outcomes as was hoped but it has meant that the state has not borne the full cost of service failure. This is the other side of the risk transfer issue and whilst it is a small mercy ( we would all much rather see the primes being effective and getting people into work after all) it can be seen as part-vindication of the PbR approach – the programmes failed but at least we didn’t have to pay their full cost.
Wow! I don't know about you, but I needed to read that a couple of times before the significance sank in - the programmes failed, but at least we didn't have to pay their full cost! But hang on a minute, aren't these contractors being funded in addition to the Job Centre staff? Anyway, he goes on to speculate how PbR might be regarded in relation to privatising probation:-
In this context it seems to me that the critical issue in whether or not the approach being adopted with probation will work is how much it is possible to improve on current probation performance. There is a widespread, if largely implicit view, that it's not possible to significantly improve compliance/re-offending rates. If this is true then any organisation would be foolish to commit to a contract with a significant PbR component because the likelihood of failure is pretty high; if it is not true (ie it is possible to significantly improve performance) then a contract with a significant PbR component may be attractive (provided the metrics are right etc). In reality this is very difficult to know with confidence: therefore given the likely focus on price within the process the safest strategy for a contractor to adopt is to aim to deliver the same outcomes (or even maybe worse outcomes) at much less cost – anything else is too risky. In this scenario the state ends up paying less money for the same or worse outcomes (which is what seems to have happened with the Work Programme) which can still be viewed, I suppose, as a positive outcome for the state. However for those who believe that PbR has the potential to drive major improvements in reducing recidivism this outcome would be a grave disappointment.
So, according to this expert, there's a good chance the Rehabilitation Revolution will result in the same or worse outcomes, but at less cost to the state "which can still be viewed, I suppose, as a positive outcome for the state."
Lets be absolutely clear here. The above reasoning forms part of an assessment by an insider on the case to be made for breaking up a skilled, professional and well-performing public service, on the off chance the result might be worse or no better than now, but at least it will be cheaper. Is that really what we want our public services to aspire to under private operation?
Sign the No10 petition here.
Friday, 1 March 2013
Soft Soap from Minister
Just one of the small problems the MoJ has in trying to get the privatisation of probation to work under a Payment by Result system is the very annoying fact that released prisoners sometimes move. This topic came up at the stakeholder event I attended with potential bidders for 'through the gate' services becoming increasingly vexed at how they were to be paid if the client moved away?
The civil servants were scratching their heads, whilst some of us just shook our heads in disbelief, but the minister has come up with a very simple answer - they won't be allowed to move! When Chris Grayling gave evidence to the Justice Affairs Select Committee the other day, as reported here in the Guardian, he told them:-
Newly released prisoners will be banned from moving around the country when they leave jail to ensure they complete rehabilitation programmes, Chris Grayling has told MPs.
The civil servants were scratching their heads, whilst some of us just shook our heads in disbelief, but the minister has come up with a very simple answer - they won't be allowed to move! When Chris Grayling gave evidence to the Justice Affairs Select Committee the other day, as reported here in the Guardian, he told them:-
Newly released prisoners will be banned from moving around the country when they leave jail to ensure they complete rehabilitation programmes, Chris Grayling has told MPs.
The justice secretary said tougher conditions would be imposed on released prisoners from short sentences so that they could not "move 200 miles up the road for no reason".
He justified the move saying the current situation was "quite chaotic", with newly released prisoners moving around the country fuelling stubbornly high reoffending rates. "I do not think that anybody who has come out of prison and is subject to a supervision arrangement should be free to up sticks and move somewhere else," said Grayling after a Commons evidence hearing.
Oh minister, if only things in life were that simple! I think it's probably best we just let him find out for himself what the practicalities are of trying to impose such a condition, not so clients can complete their rehabilitation courses, but rather so the contractors can get paid. Of course that's a recurring theme in this whole daft idea. Never mind all the practical issues of trying to put in place a home, a job, drug and alcohol treatment etc for each released prisoner, it's actually all about a bloody payment and audit trail.
Amazingly he said there was no point in continuing to wait for the outcomes of the HMP Peterborough and HMP Doncaster 'through the gate' trials because it would take far too long. Much better then to just roll it out nationwide and hope for the best. In fact a bit like the Work Programme he introduced when he was at the Department of Work and Pensions. Presumably he could not see the irony of mentioning that the scheme had only taken a year and 18 days to set up and as we all know, has subsequently proved to be a roaring success.
The minister appeared to be in full 'soft soap' mode by this time:-
He said he wanted to learn some of the lessons of the Work Programme, which is designed to get the unemployed into work and which he set up in only one year and 18 days. In particular he wanted to ensure that smaller voluntary organisations took a more commercial approach and did not sign up to deals that meant they actually lost money.
The justice secretary also said big companies would not win the contracts to supervise and mentor medium and low-risk offenders simply by putting in the lowest bids – they would also have to provide their own expertise and skills.
In the face of questions from MPs about the dynamic nature of offenders and how somebody designated "low-risk" can quickly turn into a high risk to the public, Grayling said it would be up to small probation "public protection teams" to monitor when the supervision of an offender should be brought back under public control.
In the face of questions from MPs about the dynamic nature of offenders and how somebody designated "low-risk" can quickly turn into a high risk to the public, Grayling said it would be up to small probation "public protection teams" to monitor when the supervision of an offender should be brought back under public control.
He also confirmed that a 100% system of "payment by results" would not be used in the mentoring and supervision of offenders. Part of it would have to be free to recognise that the sentence of a court was being carried out. Work was still ongoing on how payment by results would work in practice, with questions of how out-of-court disposals such as cautions would affect payments yet to be decided.
The justice secretary also indicated there would be safeguards to prevent private companies and the voluntary sector simply "creaming and parking" the offenders less likely to respond to rehabilitation.
That's all ok then!
Sign the No10 petition here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)